On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:30:43PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I would consider making both installers equally easy to find a better
> outcome than the current status quo, where the version which is more
> likely to be useful for modern laptops is kept hidden and hard to find
and also described a
* Gunnar Wolf: " Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware" (Mon, 22 Aug
2022 12:32:54 -0500):
> I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
> proposal.
>
> I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
> two sets of images (fully-free and wit
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following
lines.
==
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Co
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Tobias Frost (2022-08-22 15:57:01)
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:39:21AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> > Ansgar writes:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 16:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
>> > >> Do we need to update the Debian Social Contract for that?
>>
"Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
> In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a
number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works
fine and in general I have not needed to enable non-free/contrib for
Simon Josefsson writes:
> "Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
>
>> In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
>
> That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a
> number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works
> fine and in general I have not
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> So, I propose the following:
>
> =
>
> We will include non-free firmware packages from the
> "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
> media (installer images and live image
On 2022-08-23 04 h 39, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following
lines.
==
We continu
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
>
> > In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
>
> That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a
> number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes
Quoting Simon Josefsson (2022-08-23 10:39:57)
> ==
>
> We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract �1
> which says:
>
>Debian will remain 100% free
>
>We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
>"free" in the document entitled
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:32:54 -0500, Gunnar Wolf said:
> I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
> proposal.
> I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
> two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
> later more pr
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:20:15PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> With this GR proposal there would no longer be an installer without those
> non-free bits.
Would you consider proposing an alternative ballot option, instead of
repeatedly stating your dislike of this one?
Debian's voting system all
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
> makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following
> lines.
>
> =
My original mail doesn't seem to have come through, so I'm re-sending.
Apologies if this comes through twice.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:39:57 +0200, Simon Josefsson said:
> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
> Debian less of a free software operating system than it
Quoting Philip Hands (2022-08-23 10:44:55)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > Quoting Tobias Frost (2022-08-22 15:57:01)
> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:39:21AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> > Ansgar writes:
> >> >
> >> > > On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 16:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> >> > >> Do
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:39:57 +0200, Simon Josefsson said:
> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today.
> That makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the
> following lines.
> =
Antonio Terceiro writes:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> "Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
>>
>> > In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
>>
>> That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a
>> number of laptops, desktop
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
> *required* a non-DFSG image.
would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"?
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 17:31 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Antonio Terceiro writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > > "Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
> > >
> > > > In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
> > >
> > > That is not my experien
"Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> "Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
>>
>> > In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
>>
>> That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a
>> number of laptops, desk
Quoting Holger Levsen (2022-08-23 17:33:27)
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
> > *required* a non-DFSG image.
>
> would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
> images, a "fr
On 2022-08-23 18:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
*required* a non-DFSG image.
would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"?
As I laid out my r
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:38:52PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> "Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
> >> > In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
> >>
> >> That is not my experience -
Ansgar dijo [Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 06:24:40PM +0200]:
> I don't think everyone can affort the energy (in)efficiency of a decade
> old hardware. Most users will also have more recent hardware; I don't
> know much 10+ years hardware still in productive use...
>
> Either way, such ancient hardware is
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 19:04 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> On 2022-08-23 18:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I mean, DSC#1 says that "Debian will remain 100% free" - how is
> > that possible if an official part of Debian is omitted?
> > Or how is it possible for the firmware-containing image to be f
Forwarded following a bounce to debian-vote for completeness
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:03:57 +
From: "Andrew M.A. Cater"
To: Simon Josefsson
Cc: debian-v...@einval.com
Subject: Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "A
Phil Morrell writes:
> Just be aware that this rationale can have the opposite of its intended
> effect in the long term:
>
> https://ariadne.space/2022/01/22/the-fsfs-relationship-with-firmware-is-harmful-to-free-software-users/
My reading of that is that the FSF RYF program does not meet the n
Simon Josefsson dijo [Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 07:57:36PM +0200]:
> > I find that if I assume the DSC points are unordered, and numbered only
> > for reference, then there's sentences in there that support the offering
> > of official images including firmware by default, even while considering
> > the
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Simon Josefsson dijo [Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 07:57:36PM +0200]:
>> > I find that if I assume the DSC points are unordered, and numbered only
>> > for reference, then there's sentences in there that support the offering
>> > of official images including firmware by default, eve
Quoting Ansgar (2022-08-23 19:44:17)
> > On 2022-08-23 18:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > (I only see that being possible by treating the install image as not
> > > part of Debian, which I consider an unacceptable interpretation).
>
> For me installation media are more or less just a glorified n
Quoting Gunnar Wolf (2022-08-23 19:06:50)
> Debian should try to cater (more) for [less-technical] users, becauser
> if we reject newbies, they will take the curiosity somewhere else
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't think anyone here disagrees wuth that.
What I disagree with is that we should mov
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 20:38 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Ansgar (2022-08-23 19:44:17)
> > > On 2022-08-23 18:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > (I only see that being possible by treating the install image as not
> > > > part of Debian, which I consider an unacceptable interpretation).
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:30:43PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I would consider making both installers equally easy to find a better
> outcome than the current status quo, where the version which is more
> likely to be useful for modern laptops is kept hidden and hard to find
I like your idea of
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:32:23AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Bart Martens dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:24:32PM +0200]:
> > > > We will include non-free firmware packages from the
> > > > "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
> > > > media (installer images and l
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:32:54PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
> proposal.
>
> I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
> two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
> later
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 03:33:27PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
> > *required* a non-DFSG image.
>
> would you also find it problematic if there were *two* offic
On 2022-08-23 22:22, Bart Martens wrote:
Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
would be available.
Do we need to recommend one above the other? I'd rather use some short
explanation per installer to he
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:20:09PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 03:33:27PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
> > > *required* a non-DFSG im
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:47:34AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 12:32 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
>> I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
>> two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
>> later more prominent.
>
>Is the D
Hey Phil,
Thanks for writing this, I think you're explaining this well. Except...!
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:51:10PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>
>I would suggest that "abandoning the free software ideals of the Debian
>project" is significantly mis-characterising what's going on here.
>
>Debian
Hi Bart!
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:22:39PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:32:23AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
...
>> Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
>> purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
>> would be available.
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 19:57 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> My reading of that is that the FSF RYF program does not meet the needs
> of people who do not care about having a fully free software system.
My reading of it was the opposite, that the FSF RYF program doesn't
take into account the poten
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 17:47 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Now we're in a situation where non-free firmware is absolutely required for
> basic functionality - without the Intel non-free firmware, you can't run
> sound for a visually impaired user to install if you have some Intel laptops.
A co
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:20:09PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> It would be nice to have both installers presented on the front page, so users
> can choose. I have no strong opinion on whether the "plus" installer would be
> called official or not.
While we are at it, can you please propose a word
On August 23, 2022 5:38:52 PM GMT+02:00, Simon Josefsson
wrote:
> I have no problem
>with builtin non-upgradeable firmware -- see
>https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria for rationale.
Hi!
I've always had a really hard time understanding that rationale, despite not
doubting the FSF's good intentio
45 matches
Mail list logo
