Tobias Frost <t...@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free >> system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so. >> >> For example, I install the firmware-iwlwifi package on my laptop because >> I haven't been bothered to replace the wifi module with an Atheros wifi >> module yet, even though I bought it five years ago. This flexibility >> suits me well, and it does not seem to be in conflict with the >> flexibility you appear to desire: using a non-free installer to install >> these things automatically for you. My flexibility will no longer be >> permitted by Proposal A and E. > > As you keep repeating that: > Proposal A and E explictly states: > > The included firmware binaries will normally be enabled by default where the > system determines that they are required, **but where possible we will > include > ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel command > line > etc.).**
And also:
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
> You still have the flexibilty. You still can make the non-free firmware inert
> bits.
> The installer will still not *require* these bits to function.
I disagree. The installer will contain the non-free bits, and thus will
not work as intended without them under the A/E proposals. I cannot
download the non-free installer and use/redistribute it under a
DFSG-compatible license. That has been my main problem with A all
along, and I believe it violates DSC1: Debian will be 100% free.
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
