Paul Wise writes ("Re: If Debian support OS certification?"):
> For Debian I expect your proposal "do not require loading externally
> supplied non-free firmware" is something that most of Debian can agree
> is a reasonable endorsement target for now.Yes. I think this is rather unfortunate for all the reasons you set out in your mail, but I can't see a politically workable alternative bright line. > > Otherwise, we'll have to display different types of logo, like "works > > with Debian ... but", and then that starts to confuse users, which is > > counter-productive. > > I think for hardware that doesn't support whatever criteria we come up > with, we just wouldn't have a certification logo but would say "this > hardware is *not* Debian certified because ..., but can run Debian if > ...". For "certified" hardware we would include the logo and say "this > hardware is Debian certified, but you need to be aware of these > proprietary components and what their capabilities are". I think this is a very good idea. A trustworthy certification report that said "this machine would have passed the certification, except that the wifi card requires a separately supplied firmware blob from Debian non-free" would be extremely useful to many users and potential purchasers. I wonder if we could have a certification level (and associated name, logo, etc.) that specifically permits exactly this kind of deviation. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
