Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Simon Josefsson
Kurt Roeckx writes: > 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 th

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Simon Josefsson
Jonas Smedegaard writes: > I view the official Debian install image as a component of Debian, and > consequently if the (only) official Debian install image were to contain > non-free bits then we would violate DSC#1. I also find this problematic. As far as I can tell, the alternatives on this

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Vincent Bernat
On 2022-08-23 10:39, Simon Josefsson wrote: Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default. The initial proposition was also pushing a new n

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Simon Josefsson
Vincent Bernat writes: > On 2022-08-23 10:39, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the >> main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will >> not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default. > > The initial

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Steve McIntyre
Hi Kurt! On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Hey Wouter! >> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> >On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> sy

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Steve McIntyre
Hi Simon! On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >== > >We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract ยง1 >which says: > > Debian will remain 100% free > > We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is > "free" i

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:36:37AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > > I view the official Debian install image as a component of Debian, and > > consequently if the (only) official Debian install image were to contain > > non-free bits then we would violate DSC#1. > >

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:38:52PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Hi Kurt! > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> Hey Wouter! > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 21:49 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be > allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on it? and if so, how/where should we be allowed to mention/document/promote the images containing

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-29 Thread Russ Allbery
Kurt Roeckx writes: > If you believe that any of the options conflict with the DSC, I would > like to see a discussion about that too. > It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they > might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not > require a 3:1 majori