Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Point 2.1.1 of the Debian Constitution is relevant here. Under the Debian > Constitution, you have no grounds for expecting the d-i team to work on > this on your preferred time scale. If you want to get work done that > other people have not completed as fast as you would like, I suggest > investigating how you can do that work yourself.
I am entirely happy for the d-i team to never do the work. But that does not mean that the kernel team should therefore be allowed to go ahead and ship non-free programs in their packages. And I am entirely happy to do the work to make the kernel packages free, but I have the feeling that this isn't what's desired. Point 2.1.1 does not mean that a developer can say "nyaa nyaa nyaa, i'm shipping nonfree code and you can't stop me, because you can't order me to remove it, because of point 2.1.1." I see the task as "make Debian conform to the Social Contract". I see there are two ways to accomplish this task: 1) Make the installer able to load the firmware from somewhere other than the normal packages, and split the firmware out accordingly, or 2) Drop the relevant drivers from the kernel packages. I would prefer option (1), but I am content with option (2). I regard the following pseudo-option as unacceptible: PO) Release in intentional violation of the Social Contract. If option (1) is too hard to do for the release, then option (2) must be chosen by default, and yes, I am happy to do the work for option (2) if that's necessary. But my unwillingness to do the work for option (1) does not somehow mean that (PO) must be chosen. Well, if our principles mean much at all, that is. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
