On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:52:48 -0300 Alexandre Oliva <lxol...@fsfla.org> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2009, Diego Saravia <d...@unsa.edu.ar> wrote: > > > 2009/8/19 Alexandre Oliva <lxol...@fsfla.org>: > >> On Aug 19, 2009, Diego Saravia <d...@unsa.edu.ar> wrote: [ trimmed the extended context... hopefully it wasn't needed ] > Informing the user that there is a way to run non-Free, rather than > warning about the trap it sets, means regarding running non-Free as > something possibly good. > > Informing the user in that way is very bad, whereas running non-Free > is only unfortunate. I think we agree any messages put out by the driver should be along the lines of 'this requires proprietary software, so wont work at the moment' rather then 'download driver from example.com/proprietary/driver'. > >> presented to it for execution, specifically demands non-Free > >> Software to be installed. > > > demands? > > > not sugest? > > The driver requests the file and refuses to do any useful work without > it. That's a demand. Its demanding software. By default (eg, as shipped by Linux upstream) that may be proprietary, but that doesn't mean it has to be so. kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature