Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point is, some drivers DO require firmwares. I'd rather say: Some > depend on firmware. In that case, if the firmware is non-free, the > driver can't go in main. Is this the case even if the firmware is in a flash chip attached to the device? If the total amount of non-free software on a user's system is the same regardless, why are we concerned about how it's packaged? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The point is, some drivers DO require firmwares. I'd rather say: Some >> depend on firmware. In that case, if the firmware is non-free, the >> driver can't go in main. > > Is this the case even if the firmware is in a flash chip attached to the > device? If the total amount of non-free software on a user's system is > the same regardless, why are we concerned about how it's packaged? Argh. Sorry, I shouldn't be allowed to post while drunk. That was meant to go to -legal, not -devel. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:41:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Is this the case even if the firmware is in a flash chip attached to the > device? If the total amount of non-free software on a user's system is > the same regardless, why are we concerned about how it's packaged? 'kay, this has already been debated earlier, but let me rephrase it. If some driver depend on *loading* a non-free firmware, i.e. being *totally* useless without, it goes into contrib. Same applies to any software in debian, right ? Mike
Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 04:20:16AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Argh. Sorry, I shouldn't be allowed to post while drunk. That was meant > to go to -legal, not -devel. And i shouldn't have replied without looking at the To: field. Mike
