Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This would make more sense if I sent it to the right list, really. Sorry about that.
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on >> debian-legal. All other participants argue for non-free-firmware-using >> drivers going in contrib. > > (cough) > > I'm still entirely unclear on the logic of moving drivers that require > firmware to be loaded from disk to contrib. If they didn't require that > non-free code to be on disk, it'd be in a ROM on the device instead. All > drivers require non-free firmware - whether we have to ship it or not > should not affect the freedom (or otherwise) of a driver. > > Let's pretend that Debian actually has a significant amount of leverage > on this sort of issue, and that vendors see their drivers appearing in > contrib and want to do something about it. They /could/ open the > firmware and provide a toolchain for it. We'd put the driver in main, > then. Alternatively, they could put the firmware in ROM. In this case, > the amount of non-free code on a user's system would not change, but > we'd move the driver to main anyway. > > Note that this doesn't mean I think firmware should be in main. But I > think that's an entirely separate argument. Picking on drivers that > force us to notice their dependencies on non-free code while ignoring > drivers that are just as dependent (but in a less obvious way) is > hypocrisy. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
