Lewis Jardine wrote: [snip] > As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of > 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of > copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim copyright infringement. > If a fully working, tested solution to load > non-free firmware from userland into the kernel (thus avoiding the > linking problem) Linking means to bind some object files together. Those firmwares aren't distributed as object files. > fell from the sky tomorrow, I suspect very few people > would suggest that it was A Bad Thing, and that the kernel was better > when it had potentially dubious, non-free blobs in it. Which relies on the rather weak legal theory that compiled in firmware is part of a derived work, while the same firmware in a ramdisk image (or even a CD image) suddenly constitutes a collection of works. > In my opinion, the problem isn't the principle, merely the practicality: Principle kills practicality, ATM. > a delayed Sarge would be annoying, but the products that are necessary > for an 'anally-free' Sarge would be of great benefit to users of both > Debian, and Free Software in general. What exactly are these great benefits? I see diminished driver support and a lack of documentation, or alternatively non-free as a rather mandatory part of a Debian installation. And this still doesn't count the fight if a jpeg or some font descriptions can be source. > Clause four of (even the unamended) social contract, in my opinion, > suggests that later is better than less free, and thus the amendment was > The Right Thing, even though it may delay Sarge. In my opinion, invoking the Social Contract is Debian's version of Godwin's Law. Thiemo
