On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:41:26PM -0300, hellekin wrote: > On 06/03/2015 11:37 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote: > > > > about licensing purity. > > > > and: > > > But whatever you do, don't paternalize the users. There's nothing more > > infuriating than an infantilizing message in the way of what you want to > > do. > > > > and: > > > Your users chose Devuan: they already have made a good choice. > > and: > > > do not disrespect them by force-feeding them moralistic crap they don't > > care about and that will only antagonize them. > > > *** I must I was almost agreeing until "moralistic crap". This is your > opinion, and in my own, an unfounded one. What we're talking about here > is about technology, not moralistic anything. > > The technology we're building is one that empowers the user, and it is > arguable whether considering the imposition of freedom-restricting > technology empowers the use or not. The case is hardware that the user > buys and that refuses to work without secret code from the company. > Would you buy a car if the seller would tell you that you will need to > use their own specific fuel and tires, and only drive highways? Of > course not, because you buy a mean of transport, not an universal ticket > for free transportation. > > If Devuan is to replace Debian in its role of a foundation for free > software distribution, then it needs to be closer to Debian, not to > Ubuntu. And since we have the opportunity to discuss the matter, I'm > for a "core" distribution of free software, that enables anyone to build > upon that core, including softening its edges and allow it to enable > self-rendition to proprietary software. > > This core distribution should fly high the colors of software freedom, > because nobody else will do. And a fundamental software freedom is you > can use it for any purpose, including making yourself a slave of > corporations. But that should be a choice, and one that the > distribution does not encourage by default. > > Now, the base installer is such a vector of individuation, as Debian 8 > demonstrated by using it to install systemd. Systemd is free software, > but we don't like it to be installed by default. Now we would frown at > it and happily include non-free software in our base installer? I > really don't see the point. Again, that people buy hardware requiring > non-free software to run is a problem, but that problem does not need to > be ignored and dismissed, it needs to be confronted and fixed.
It can be quite difficult to find out whether a piece of hardware you're considering buying requires nonfree drivers. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
