JA Magallón a écrit :
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:41:18 -0400, andre999<and...@laposte.net> wrote:
Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 20:08, Anssi Hannula<anssi.hann...@iki.fi> wrote:
On 24.03.2011 19:35, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
Summary (from http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy):
* core: stuff that is not Free/Open Source according to OSI/FSF does
not belong here. Not even closed-source stuff that we can
redistribute. So if there is at this time, that's something to fix.
Most of files in kernel-firmware (which is in core) are not OSI/FSF free
(approximate list from 2010 [1]). There was a short thread about that
[2] where I asked the question if they should be moved to non-free due
to them not being OSI/FSF free, and tmb agreed, while pterjan disagreed
(saying BSD without source code (where a portion of the firmware files
in question fall) is eligible for core).
[1] http://lists.mandriva.com/cooker/2010-01/msg00525.php
[2] https://mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/20110115/002172.html
Ah right, sorry for overlooking this.
So what do we do? amend core inclusion definition for that? or move
these to nonfree? (and at what cost?) topic for next Council meeting
to decide? would you like to write a summary for this in
http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=meeting:council_notes_2011_03_28#open_questions
?
Romain
fwiw, I think the best solution is to have an express policy to include
such firmware in core.
Without it, much hardware simply won't work. Firmware/drivers are
essentially extensions to hardware, so that software can work with them.
The hardware is changed, and firmware/drivers have to be changed to
accommodate the hardware.
These firmware/drivers provide an interface which allows (free) software
to run.
A practical solution, which doesn't hurt free software.
The alternative is (free) software that doesn't run properly.
my 2 cents :)
Sincerely, I would be more than happy than nVidia drivers went to core,
but I'm pragmatic. I can understand that moving only firmwares to
core, and leaving nVidia, ATI and other closed source drivers in non-free
can be a compromise solution. It's the difference between losing
100% functionality of an important piece of hardware/system (network,
for example -now that I read the list in Anssi's mail, 80% of firmwares
in non-free are network- o fiber-channel), or getting a not so performant
system 'cause you dont have the binary drivers for your graphics card
(and I'm not aware of any other binary driver so popular/needed, nVidia
and ATI).
So in short, there are three important pieces of software:
- net/fc/radeon firmwares, mandatory for some free drivers
- nVidia/ATI binary drivers, wanted but optional, not mandatory
Firmwares and drivers, they are different beasts for me.
And anyways, you already have firmwares in your hardware and in your
kernel which source you can't look at...
And cherry picking firmwares from standard kernel source looks like
madness for me.
ok.
My though was essentially that firmware is so close to hardware that its
actual free/non-free status shouldn't apply - we should treat it like
(almost) part of the hardware.
As for the drivers, a little more distant from the hardware, they could
be in non-free, but I sincerely think that they should be on all
installation isos.
That is, on installing from an iso, all hardware-related functions
should (ideally) be fully functional, even if it requires using non-free
drivers.
The lack of some drivers (or components of drivers) can render a system
technically functional, but with important dysfunctions, simply because
the required drivers were not available on installation.
That should not happen.
The kernel, firmware and drivers, built on the hardware, provide a
platform on which the application software runs.
True, it is better if drivers are open source, but in my view, it is
application software where open source is the most important.
--
André
