Re, Bon ça va mettre la grouille mais je réponds en anglais, ça me permet de réfléchir et de réutiliser quand même ensuite ;-) (j'ai moitié moins à traduire) I'm taking the point of view of debian for once, in order to find my own reasons why I would agree. I had not suficient time to find a similar reasonning that would not sound like proselitysm though... Maybe http://www.aful.org/faqs/FAQConstructeurs.en.html but that's to be updated... available in French as well http://www.aful.org/faqs/FAQConstructeurs.fr.html Thanks for taking time to read (and see at the end as well) Le mardi 12 octobre 2004 à 01:50 +0200, Martin Braure de Calignon a écrit : > [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > >>>Martin Braure de Calignon a écrit : > >>>>mais il me paraissait logique > >>>>qu'un firmware librement diffusable (c'est le cas) mais dont on a pas > >>>>les sources doit se trouver dans non-free. > >Debian a fait le choix de ne placer dans main que les paquets repectant une > >certaine charte très contraignante, c'est un choix. My understanding is that they show an ideal that any part accessible to a programmer may find its programmer one day to support it in the community. The firmware is just that : microcode run on an embedded systems. There are programmers for this DSP 8051 that would understand how to ensure that new BNM are backward compatible and can implement CMV values tuned for each implementation. Having the code may help review it and enhance it. This is not currently needed as ADI is providing us with "things that work", but we cannot be sure of it (there's a kind of magic ;-) ) For older version of firmware and bnm, I do not see the reason why ADI would not release the code as GPL, as there is no particular commercial advantage to keep it. As long as they remain the official provider, they hold the copyright and can change licence for newer version, the old code is still available for older/previous hardware but newer code (which may not be distributed) is needed for latest hardware. They just have to deny patches to be included that are GPL. So there would be 3 versions out there : the n version GPLized, an n' version from the community (either the same or an enhanced one) and each and everytime a n+1 goes out it is only GPLized once they want it as it implements non GPL (new/proprietary) parts. This may be false as I'm not a specialist of GPL... It seems to me though that's the way Xfree86 went : n+1 is non gpl, xorg is n' (and now widely used). ADI core business is to build chipsets (true ?) that have functionalities, they can keep their advances. > >Je m'attendais à qu'une partie des paquets se retrouve dans non-free (on a le > >droit de le diffuser, mais c'est pas des paquets tout beau comme Debian les > >veut). > >Dans ce cas, tous les paquets qui en dépendent tombe dans contrib. > >main = distribution DSFG compliant > >non-free = on peut distribuer (et on le fait parce que c'est pratique) mais ce > >n'est pas DSFG compliant ah, you sure ?! not in "pure" debian ? only in distributions based on debian (knoppix and al, ...) ? > >contrib = ce qui pourrait être dans main si cela ne dépendait de ce qui est dans > >non-free > >Ce ne serait pas très embettant s'il ne s'agissait pas du moyen pour accéder à > >l'Internet. > Oui je crois qu'on est tous d'accord sur ça... The user is still free to have another modem ;-) That's not a solution clearly from the user point of view, but debian is doing it for the sake of the user (should it be in the long term... which is not such a bad idea... Do other distributions - commercial or not - have to negotiate with manufacturers to obtain the right to distribute each piece of "non-GPL" ? (I think yes, though for "public domain" that's not necessary) Think of Apple that makes higher-than-average quality hardware (that's the idea of it I have, but I only take it as an example) : well integration is easier (less costly) for them as they choose what works and that they support. Well, Debian is doing the same : they make higher-than-average free software, which costs less problems of dependancy on providers/things that the community cannot work with (reverse engineering being quite costly and not approved in many countries). They have chosen to privilege what respects the Debian Social Contract : either you are in, or you are out, that's simple for support (quite binary though, we agree)
> >>>quels sont les impacts ? (URL ?) si tu me dis que ça ne va pas sur le CD > >>>permettant l'install', non je ne vais pas te tuer, je te ferais simplement > >>remarquer (comme les utilisateurs) : > >Tout ce qui est non-free et contrib n'est pas sur les CD officiel Debian. > >Il existe des version non-free, Debian + paquets non-free. > >C'est vraiment handicapant pour l'utilisateur. time will tell, it only means that the average user has to wait for non-free distribution, or rally those manufacturers that have "supported" hardware. As in the Apple example (or rather an Ockam razor... following the KISS moto) that's basic to understand, not that evident to accept. > >Et j'en profite pour donner mon opinion > > > >extrait de « Les principes du logiciel libre selon Debian » > > 2. Code source > > Le programme doit inclure le code source, et la diffusion sous forme de > >code source comme sous forme de programme compilé doit être autorisée. > >Malheureusement j'ai pu constaté que ces débat était animé en partie par > >quelques intégristes ignorant. Je veux simplement faire remarquer que la > >définition de ce qu'est un programme n'a rien d'évident. Un programme qui > >s'exécute sur quoi ? Je répondrais naturellement les programmes qui s'exécutent > >sur mon système Debian... mon modem n'est pas un système Debian ! > >Posséder le code de tous les programmes s'exécutant sur sa machine est une bonne > >chose. Mais mon modem n'est pas une partie de mon PC. Je veux un OS libre sur > >mon PC, mais je m'autorise à la raccorder à des choses qui fonctionnent > >autrement (ma chaine hifi par exemple). references ? URL ? I've already seen this troll ;-) Take it the other way around : I've got an old Sony hi-fi which has not an entry for my computer, only for an analogic disc-reader (you know : old 45RPM) ; the difference is only a 50 ohms resistance (otherwise the sound is distorted), I'm happy that people good at electronic can provide me with the appropriate adapter. They can do it because they have the specifications (interfaces are well defined). > >Donc la question du code source est une fausse question à mon avis. Il est > >vraiment urgent que Debian (mais pas seulement Debian) précise dans sa charte > >le status des fichiers qui sont destinés à d'autres systèmes (firmware, > >microcode, code DSP, etc). > Je suis d'accord sur ça, il faut que ce soit précisé, et c'était bien le > but de ma question au départ, absolument pas que eagle se retrouve en > non-free (j'ai peut-être été moins clair dans les autres mails). Their position is too clear on this : either in, or out. I think there's no way of making them change their mind, for our own good : we have to adapt and find suitable solutions. Even if I do agree that it does not matter for a program working on my CPU, that's not their preoccupation as I understand it. And if it were only a problem of distributing something that they cannot check (as the source code is missing), there would not be something as non-free, they would have accepted a method (signature, checksum, ...) to ensure that nobody tampers with the closed-binary furnished. Indeed their responsibility may be involved if they propagate something that they cannot check what it does (the problem does not happen when it is furnished by Sagem for example, as debian is not responsible, that's the problem of Sagem). > Mais bon le débat des firmware et autres trucs du genre n'est pas fini > :-/ .... > Donc heuuu d'un côté désolé d'avoir posé la question sur deb-legal ^^, > d'un autre côté, la question me paraissait légitime. Your question is legitimate, but whether the answer was obvious or not, the consequences have to be taken into account. Now let's find satisfying solutions for both parts. If ADI were to choose to release everything debian needs (which is to be defined : source, docs ?) choosing GPL, it would *really* simplify things. If they don't want GPL for current version of firmware/BNM, which options do they have, what can they provide ? (that is compliant with use by debian and compatible with distribution on CD, as we are talking about the access to internet that it the first thing a user needs) Let's choose the GPL option : - they provide firmware and BNM as source code, and maybe some documentation - does it exist tools to compile it from source in order to be compliant with gna's constitution ? Well, I kept for the end what led me to this way of seeing things : https://gna.org/about I agree with what's written from a philosophical point of view, even from a pragmatic point of view (we would not have this problem with firmware if it had been completely addressed before), but I do not agree with the implied consequences as they are not manageable immediately (I'm not going to find a cvs in the night). Even if they were, that does not solve the main problem : only seeing the "good" is not that satisfying "know your ennemy" is a better approach, better have it near you so that you know what is going on (and convince it in the end), rather than isolate him so that in the end it's far more difficult to understand each other. There would be an observation period of course, giving time to choose alternative should it prove not workable to be compliant. Please do re-read https://gna.org/about do re-read the response you would have sent at first thought then re-read this mail and provide me with workable solutions/thoughts rather than thinking to a flamewar (which I may deserve for being wrong in some places : in this case only point the inexact points, rather than argueing). You may follow the thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00089.html (try to guess the answers before reading next message in this thread, you may find it interesting. Then re-read your previous answer (that you have not yet sent) to this (long) mail and separate opinions from facts. This is work in progress, that I should update, mostly to add the option "it works for the end-user". Ben'. aka baud123
