Re: New section for firmware.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 03:55:40PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: Having two sets of images doesn't make sense to me; the CD team have already posted publically this cycle about the infrastructure challenges involved with publishing those images that they already have to accomodate, doubling the image count doesn't sound feasible, IMHO. In addition, it should be fairly easy to add firmware D-I images; hd-media: mount cp ISOs: xorriso (command-line) or isomaster (GUI), or just mount and genisoimage. I wonder, is it somehow possible to generate multi-session ISO images that would let users add in the non-free firmware by mere concatenation? I know you can do multisession DVD+RWs with growisofs, but I have no clue if there are compatibility issues when doing this with raw CDs. netboot: cp At least on archs where the initramfs is fed directly to the tftp server, my understanding is that it should be possible to concatenate multiple cpio archives to provide a single initramfs. (At least, that was supposed to be one of the selling points of initramfs!) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Johannes Wiedersich j...@ph.tum.de wrote: [...] The suggestion is to add a debconf question to each installation from that 'firmware section'. This will honestly point out to users that they are about to install non-free stuff which is not part of debian proper [1]. I like this suggestion. Now the question: Would this section not be better called 'sourceless'? [...] In the context of the current proposal, I would call it something like 'sourceless-uploads' to try to make it clear it is for firmware that is uploaded to some subprocessor and not run by the debian processor. Generally, I think the firmware area is a step forwards in helping more people to visualise the size of the problem/task. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Thiemo Seufer t...@networkno.de wrote: Kurt Roeckx wrote: [...] hardware to make it fully functional. The files in this area should not comply with the DFSG #2, #3 and #4, but should ^ .. need not to comply ..; as already mentioned by others. Just need not comply (no to required after need, or allows). comply with the rest of the the DFSG. 3. This new section will be available on our CD, DVD and other images. .. available to all supported installation methods. s/to/for/ Wearing my l10n-english hat, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org wrote: Sometimes we don't include documentation not because it is sourceless (at any rate, what is the source for a .txt file but that file itself?), but because it is simply non-free. Think about the RFCs: They are not legally modifiable. and there is _good_ reason for that (i.e. if you modify/redistribute RFC821, you might trick somebody into believing that GIVEMEROOTSHELL is a valid SMTP command). That is a good reason for having verifiably digitally-signed copies of the RFCs, but it is not a good reason for using copyright to forbid a general freedom to modify the RFC documents. Hope that explains -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:16:47PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 07:02:27PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Kurt Roeckx] The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. Without weighing in on whether there _is_ a class of software for which users shouldn't have the right to look at and modify source code, this whole phrase run on the host CPU needs to die and be replaced by something more precise. Note that the draft text doesn't actually say that part. I only added it there to try and make it more clear. I'm not sure if the rest is open for many different interpretations. And I'm always open for better ways to describe it. What do you think about: We'll create a new area in our archive that contains files that must be sent to the hardware device so that functionaly becomes available to the DFSG-free driver. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Johannes Wiedersich dijo [Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 03:25:52PM +0100]: I have one additional suggestion and a further question to the project. The suggestion is to add a debconf question to each installation from that 'firmware section'. This will honestly point out to users that they are about to install non-free stuff which is not part of debian proper [1]. Now the question: Would this section not be better called 'sourceless'? IMHO this would better point out, where exactly the problem with it is (compared to 'firmware' or similar). It might be useful to allow sourceless documentation into that section as well. Documentation is not part of the OS in a strict sense (and also not software in a strict sense). While I agree that documentation should conform to the DFSG just like software, I have to admit that I believe that the 'entry barrier' for non-free documentation on my computer system should be lower than that for non-free code. (...) Sometimes we don't include documentation not because it is sourceless (at any rate, what is the source for a .txt file but that file itself?), but because it is simply non-free. Think about the RFCs: They are not legally modifiable. and there is _good_ reason for that (i.e. if you modify/redistribute RFC821, you might trick somebody into believing that GIVEMEROOTSHELL is a valid SMTP command). We cannot create a new category for every different set of freedoms/restrictions. I think Kurt's proposal is quite adequate for _this_ specific situation, which has proven not to be a short-time problem but something that we will probably face for good. We will always have to work with hardware depending on sourceless firmware, and this is a clean way out of that problem. As for documentation (or for whatever else we currently have as non-free), we can always point the users to the proper distribution site or whatever. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Le mardi 23 décembre 2008 à 19:02 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit : Without weighing in on whether there _is_ a class of software for which users shouldn't have the right to look at and modify source code, this whole phrase run on the host CPU needs to die and be replaced by something more precise. Maybe we could also rely on common sense instead of trying to formalize every bit of everything. If a sufficiently ambiguous case arises, we can discuss it when we know what it is instead of speculating. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: New section for firmware.
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Le mardi 23 décembre 2008 à 19:02 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit : Without weighing in on whether there _is_ a class of software for which users shouldn't have the right to look at and modify source code, this whole phrase run on the host CPU needs to die and be replaced by something more precise. Maybe we could also rely on common sense instead of trying to formalize every bit of everything. If the discussion surrounding the freedom of binary blobs has shown anything, surely it's shown that within the Debian project there are mutually incompatible views on this topic, each of which is held to be “common sense” by those who hold them. At least part of the reason why these incompatible differences persist between people who have mutually agreed to the SC and DFSG, I would argue, is that we have relied on so-called “common sense” interpretations that turn out, on inspection, to be rather less common than was believed. -- \ “Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.” | `\ —Niels Bohr | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 07:02:27PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Kurt Roeckx] The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. Without weighing in on whether there _is_ a class of software for which users shouldn't have the right to look at and modify source code, this whole phrase run on the host CPU needs to die and be replaced by something more precise. Note that the draft text doesn't actually say that part. I only added it there to try and make it more clear. I'm not sure if the rest is open for many different interpretations. And I'm always open for better ways to describe it. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:15:15PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: While I think it would be reasonable to include sourceless firmware on our CDs and DVDs, I don't think this is actually a very good solution to the problem we face: - if they're included on the official Debian images, they need to meet Debian's definition of free. The point of the proposal it to change things so that can be on the official images. - if the firmware are considered free, then they can live in main. Right, it's only for things we consider non-free. I would even expect some firmware to stay in non-free. - if the images the firmware is included on aren't Debian images, then there will (presumably) still be demand for pure Debian images, and we don't need to add a new archive section in order to include non-Debian stuff on the images Do you think there will still be a demand for them if d-i asks about using that new section? Having two sets of images doesn't make sense to me; the CD team have already posted publically this cycle about the infrastructure challenges involved with publishing those images that they already have to accomodate, doubling the image count doesn't sound feasible, IMHO. Doubling the image count seems to be the only way to do it now, and that's what I want to avoid. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: Having two sets of images doesn't make sense to me; the CD team have already posted publically this cycle about the infrastructure challenges involved with publishing those images that they already have to accomodate, doubling the image count doesn't sound feasible, IMHO. I don't see the need for multiple CD sets.[1] All that should be needed is a single first CD (netinst or similar small image?) and hdimage (and floppies?) with all of the non-free firmware we can legally distribute present.[2] After the initial installation, users can then use the normal CDs and or DVDs to add additional software. Presumably the non-free firmware CD would also contain the packages and archive structure necessary for normal installation of the non-free firmware containing packages. I'd think that an extra 600Mx3 (or however many architectures need non-free firmware) wouldn't be a huge deal for our cdimage mirrors. Ideally, such a CD would be marked as unofficial or similar to indicate that it contains non-free firmware, but it could be linked and distributed as normal. Don Armstrong 1: -vote really is the wrong list to discuss this on; Cc'ing debian-cd so knowledgeable people there can tell me I'm on crack. 2: We could make the larger images too, I guess, but there's no reason why you couldn't just load the packages from the normal set of media. -- Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. -- W. Churchill http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
On Wednesday 24 December 2008, Don Armstrong wrote: 1: -vote really is the wrong list to discuss this on; Cc'ing debian-cd so knowledgeable people there can tell me I'm on crack. Yes, I'm afraid you are ;-) First of all, this does not only affect CD images, but installer images in general (think netboot), so possibly d-boot would have been even more appropriate. Second of all, the analysis for the impact on installations of firmware and why the D-I team would very much prefer to have any firmware included both on official CD images and in other D-I images (such as netboot, floppy and hd-media) has already been done and posted by Joey Hess ages ago and discussed repeatedly, both on the debian-boot list and on d-vote, and I'm quite certain also on d-project and/or d-devel. I'm sorry that I cannot currently be bothered to look up and provide the exact references, but they should be simple enough to find. The debian-cd and installer teams have equally repeatedly explained what the cost of duplicating CD images (in terms of mirror space, release and testing effort and increased user confusion) is and why they would prefer a solution where inclusion of firmware needed for basic hardware support (HID, network, USB/SCSI/...) would be allowed for official images for all installation methods. The D-I team considers the option that was very recently implemented by Joey Hess to allow users to load firmware from external media to be sub-optimal *workaround*: it does not solve all use-cases, has various usability issues and results in increased demand for user support. The implementation can still be improved somewhat, but it is close to the best support that can be offered given the current restrictions. We are also unhappy that the current method does mean that many users *will* now get non-free included in their sources list by default if firmware is loaded. My personal opinion is that having firmware in a separate section so that we'd only need to *that* section. It seems to me that would be a solution that is much closer to the spirit of the social contract than what we are forced to do currently. It's a pity that we seem to need to explain this over and over again in random threads. I would be great if the project could instead decide to do a structural analysis of the issue, present the findings and options and then just put the matter to a vote based on the outcome of that. Cheers, FJP Note: this mail was sent without previously checking its opinions with other D-I and d-cd team members, but AFAIK it does accurately reflect the opinion of at least the core members of both teams. They are of course welcome to follow up and correct me if that is not the case. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: New section for firmware.
Kurt Roeckx wrote: The files in this area should not comply with the DFSG #2, #3 and #4, but should comply with the rest of the the DFSG. nitpickSo anything that complies with 1 or 2 of these points, but not all of them, may not be included in the firmware section?/nitpick s/should not/must not necessarily/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Le mardi 23 décembre 2008 à 13:07 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. There is no reason to restrict this area to firmware images. How about “Software that is not executed on the host CPU” ? That can include e.g. non-free documentation, which clearly doesn’t belong in the same place than nVidia binary drivers. The new section should also be available on our CD/DVD images, so that users can just take a CD/DVD and that it works without having to search for the needed firmware and provide it on an other medium to the installer. I think we should clearly separate it on a different medium, except for netinst images, for which there could be two versions. BTW, do we really need yet another vote for that? If there is consensus on the usefulness, isn’t it enough to have the approval of the FTP masters and the d-i developers? -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: New section for firmware.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 03:24:25PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 23 décembre 2008 à 13:07 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. There is no reason to restrict this area to firmware images. How about ???Software that is not executed on the host CPU??? ? That can include e.g. non-free documentation, which clearly doesn???t belong in the same place than nVidia binary drivers. While I think that non-dfsg-free documentation also merits to be split off from non-free, I don't think we should generalize this too much; e.g. clearly non-free copyrighted artwork or data should probably stay in non-free. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008, Kurt Roeckx wrote: The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. Do you propose to include data for which we only lack source or build tools or doc? Or would it also include firmware data which has a license preventing any modification to the contents of the data? If the intent is to include it in our CD-ROMs, I think some people will want a really really free CD-ROM which doesn't have this section. So that would mean two sets of images. What is the advantage of this section over pulling firmwares from non-free into a second set of images? -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Le mardi 23 décembre 2008 à 15:27 +0100, Michael Banck a écrit : How about ???Software that is not executed on the host CPU??? ? That can include e.g. non-free documentation, which clearly doesn???t belong in the same place than nVidia binary drivers. While I think that non-dfsg-free documentation also merits to be split off from non-free, I don't think we should generalize this too much; e.g. clearly non-free copyrighted artwork or data should probably stay in non-free. Why? In essence, it is very similar to a firmware. It can also be necessary (e.g. for game data) to make free software work, in a similar way to the kernel with firmware. And I know that installing it is not going to blow away my system with untrusted code. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: New section for firmware.
Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 23 décembre 2008 à 13:07 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. There is no reason to restrict this area to firmware images. SC 5: We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,although they have been configured for use with Debian. Would the packages in this firmware-sourceless-notmain section be part of the Debian system or not ? Would it be a sourceless main or an important non-free ? And if this section is not considered part of the Debian system, why including software from it on the Debian CD's ? (The inverse question is to be answered too…) How about “Software that is not executed on the host CPU” ? That can include e.g. non-free documentation, which clearly doesn’t belong in the same place than nVidia binary drivers. If the section would be considered part of the Debian system, some documentation from outside the Debian system (non-free) would migrate to the Debian system, without any change in licence. This is a big move. The new section should also be available on our CD/DVD images, so that users can just take a CD/DVD and that it works without having to search for the needed firmware and provide it on an other medium to the installer. I think we should clearly separate it on a different medium, except for netinst images, for which there could be two versions. Why not. But then, would the netinst images be images of the Debian system ? BTW, do we really need yet another vote for that? If there is consensus on the usefulness, isn’t it enough to have the approval of the FTP masters and the d-i developers? Regarding the questions above, I think that they have to be carefully handled and answered, because this would be a section where the DFSG-compliance requirement is clearly weakened[0]. A statement from the Debian project as whole by the way of a GR (yet another GR I agree) would be necessary for such a modification of the Debian system. This would formalize the felt consensus in stone and be a clear message to the outside too. Best regards, OdyX [0] Quoting the original proposal: The files in this area should not comply with the DFSG #2, #3 and #4, but should comply with the rest of the the DFSG. -- Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse − http://www.swisslinux.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Loïc Minier wrote: If the intent is to include it in our CD-ROMs, I think some people will want a really really free CD-ROM which doesn't have this section. Or maybe an explicit debconf question about the non-free nature? This could make sure that no one will get non-free software installed without explicit consent and take the burden off the CD team to prepare another set of CDs etc. (Of course anything on the CDs must be distributable). So that would mean two sets of images. What is the advantage of this section over pulling firmwares from non-free into a second set of images? Fine control of allowing certain non-free drivers (and/or documentation) without enabling the whole 'evil empire' of 'non-free'. Simpler installation from CD/usb/etc (network cards etc.). See also my other post. Cheers, Johannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAklQ+WwACgkQC1NzPRl9qEXMMACeLdrZw320Ae5UDY09mfpQQ5PN oVQAn17KgugjE01mfbXSaDVAWt+Ps4gC =2t/t -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Didier Raboud wrote: And if this section is not considered part of the Debian system, why including software from it on the Debian CD's ? (The inverse question is to be answered too…) Because it might be required in order to install all that free software in the first place. How should one download the firmware for the network card? (Please don't tell me: from a second computer or after installing an other non-free OS on that computer, as this might not be possible or might be difficult for some users. ) If the section would be considered part of the Debian system, some documentation from outside the Debian system (non-free) would migrate to the Debian system, without any change in licence. This is a big move. No. 'sourceless' will be another section, technically just like 'non-free'. Once the free OS is installed, activating the whole evil empire of 'non-free' is achieved by just adding these words to a single line of a config file. I presume that 'main' and 'non-free' packages rest peacefully next to each other on the hard disk of some package server. (I might be wrong here, but at least that is how it appears to the user: just activate 'non-free' for the very same server you use for main. I don't see, why this has to be different for the installer: why would the Debian project insist that the firmware must not be included with the installer and should be put on a second, different installation medium, though there might be more than enough space on the first cd/dvd/usb-stick? (Of course no non-free software is to be installed without explicit action on of the user, just as with 'non-free'. ) Cheers, Johannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAklQ/HEACgkQC1NzPRl9qEW81gCfXEYJWC8NBo+a38hKpn+RvQzl mksAn0Qpo3lyuYtHK9qpJO+9+YdxXqg8 =L3CX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 03:34:29PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: On Tue, Dec 23, 2008, Kurt Roeckx wrote: The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. Do you propose to include data for which we only lack source or build tools or doc? Or would it also include firmware data which has a license preventing any modification to the contents of the data? It did say that it shouldn't comply with DFSG #3, so that would mean it can prevent modification. If the intent is to include it in our CD-ROMs, I think some people will want a really really free CD-ROM which doesn't have this section. So that would mean two sets of images. What is the advantage of this section over pulling firmwares from non-free into a second set of images? CDs with firmware from non-free on it would be unofficial CDs, since non-free isn't part of Debian. So I assume non of our pages would have a link to that. I want official CD images with the firmware on it. I'm open for other suggestions on how to reach that goal. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kurt Roeckx wrote: The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. [FWIW, I've been having a similar idea and just didn't want to post it into the present controversal discussions.] I have one additional suggestion and a further question to the project. The suggestion is to add a debconf question to each installation from that 'firmware section'. This will honestly point out to users that they are about to install non-free stuff which is not part of debian proper [1]. Now the question: Would this section not be better called 'sourceless'? IMHO this would better point out, where exactly the problem with it is (compared to 'firmware' or similar). It might be useful to allow sourceless documentation into that section as well. Documentation is not part of the OS in a strict sense (and also not software in a strict sense). While I agree that documentation should conform to the DFSG just like software, I have to admit that I believe that the 'entry barrier' for non-free documentation on my computer system should be lower than that for non-free code. At present both reside in 'non-free', ie. if users activate 'non-free' aptitude will install non-free software just as readily as a documentation pdf (even if the license of the pdf allows modification and only the source of the pdf is missing for some reason or other -- sometimes just neglect of upstream). The important point is that users will get more balanced control of the software installed on their systems: It's no longer 'main' vs the whole evil empire of 'non-free'. While 'sourceless' firmware and pdfs will get better Debian support (like presence on distributed media) NO non-free software or documentation will be installed without an explicit warning and an explicit case-by-case decision of the user. By allowing users who presently have 'non-free' activated for things like wireless to remove 'non-free' from their sources.list, this might even contribute towards less non-free software on Debian systems. On the whole, I think that these section (with or without documentation) will be of great benefit to our users. It will allow them to run Debian on hardware that presently cannot be supported by DFSG-free software without having to activate the whole bunch of 'non-free' software or to use third-party software. Another advantage of having that additional section is that it takes some of the burden of the RT and/or the FTP assistants. Instead of having to decide whether to suspend the whole release process by removing an important package, they could just move the package in question to the new section. (Of course it wouldn't be nice to release with the whole kernel being outside main, but as a last resort it might be possible and it would neither be the fault nor the responsibility of the RT). Disclaimer: I am not a DD, so please take this as the very humble opinion of a (serious) debian user. Cheers, Johannes [1] Unfortunately, your hardware (xy) currently is not supported by free software in Debian. You can now continue without installing non-free software. This might lead to part of your hardware not working properly. We offer the possibility to install some binary firmware. This is non-free software with no source code available. This software is not part of Debian and cannot be fully supported by Debian (we don't have the sources ourselves). As long as you don't activate the 'non-free' section of our archives, you can rest assured that Debian won't install further non-free software without your explicit consent in a question like this one. Install non-free software foo? yes / NO No being the default option. Feel free to improve or discard what I suggest. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAklQ9PAACgkQC1NzPRl9qEVU/ACcDOoYH2reEbztYi5UwX0Z3RKo TF0Anif+tO/i5mk/tUOk9Di26KAgxOa3 =kcjd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Johannes Wiedersich wrote: Didier Raboud wrote: And if this section is not considered part of the Debian system, why including software from it on the Debian CD's ? (The inverse question is to be answered too...) Because it might be required in order to install all that free software in the first place. How should one download the firmware for the network card? (Please don't tell me: from a second computer or after installing an other non-free OS on that computer, as this might not be possible or might be difficult for some users. ) In any case you have to download something and transfer it somehow to the target machine - this being a CD to burn or a USB key to write on, an OS giving hand to the installer kernel,... Downloading and burning a second thing should not be that hard (but could be in real corner-cases). But this is a technical issue. I think that the question is philosophical and related to free and libre software and Debian's concept of it. SC#1We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines. (...) We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. I think that according to this (and this is my interpretation, could be false), Debian has to provide CD images made of 100% of free and libre software (to the state of its common knowledge). Then, if some hardware (and it seems to be the case) needs special installation CDs, Debian 'can' provide some tainted CDs, as it know provides access to contrib and non-free - being CD's not part of the Debian system. I know that having unusable free Debian CD's AND useable non-free non-Debian CD's could eventually lead to the only usage of the latters, but I am convinced that Social Contract made with the Free Software Community asks for a 100% Debian system (this includes CD's IMHO). I don't object having a third non-Debian system archive section, but this section should not taint the Debian system or its installer. Regards, OdyX -- Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse − http://www.swisslinux.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Kurt Roeckx wrote: Hi, I've been thinking about this proposal for some time, and I probably should have send this some time ago. At least some people seem to have had simular ideas, so I wonder why nobody propsed anything like this. The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. The new section should also be available on our CD/DVD images, so that users can just take a CD/DVD and that it works without having to search for the needed firmware and provide it on an other medium to the installer. As draft I'd like to propose: 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software community (Social Contract #4); 2. We'll create a new area in our archive that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. The files in this area should not comply with the DFSG #2, #3 and #4, but should ^ .. need not to comply ..; as already mentioned by others. comply with the rest of the the DFSG. 3. This new section will be available on our CD, DVD and other images. .. available to all supported installation methods. (This avoids a list which might be non-exhaustive.) Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 03:44:25PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 23 décembre 2008 à 15:27 +0100, Michael Banck a écrit : How about ???Software that is not executed on the host CPU??? ? That can include e.g. non-free documentation, which clearly doesn???t belong in the same place than nVidia binary drivers. While I think that non-dfsg-free documentation also merits to be split off from non-free, I don't think we should generalize this too much; e.g. clearly non-free copyrighted artwork or data should probably stay in non-free. Why? In essence, it is very similar to a firmware. It can also be necessary (e.g. for game data) to make free software work, in a similar way to the kernel with firmware. While that might be true technically, I don't think you can compare it from a social POV. Firmware is (when it applies) (mostly) essential to make your hardware run; documentation is important to understand and learn code and/or important system programs. Game data is not essential at all in the wider scope of a Free Operating System. And I know that installing it is not going to blow away my system with untrusted code. That's certainly a requirement, but not the only one I would like to have. In the end, I guess that most games depend on their game data, so the question boils down to whether this new section is part of Debian and thus whether a depends-on relationship on this new section is allowed or not. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Le mardi 23 décembre 2008 à 21:23 +0100, Michael Banck a écrit : Why? In essence, it is very similar to a firmware. It can also be necessary (e.g. for game data) to make free software work, in a similar way to the kernel with firmware. While that might be true technically, I don't think you can compare it from a social POV. Firmware is (when it applies) (mostly) essential to make your hardware run; documentation is important to understand and learn code and/or important system programs. Game data is not essential at all in the wider scope of a Free Operating System. I don’t think we ever made a distinction on the usefulness of software to select the section they belong to; this should only affect priority. In the end, I guess that most games depend on their game data, so the question boils down to whether this new section is part of Debian and thus whether a depends-on relationship on this new section is allowed or not. I certainly don’t wish the games in question to be moved from contrib to main; after all, they *do* depend on non-free data. But I’d like to be able to install this kind of data without adding non-free (which cannot be trusted) to my APT sources. And the same holds here for firmwares and game data. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: New section for firmware.
[Kurt Roeckx] The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. Without weighing in on whether there _is_ a class of software for which users shouldn't have the right to look at and modify source code, this whole phrase run on the host CPU needs to die and be replaced by something more precise. The definition is only useful if you have a very simplified and outdated view of computer technology. There are lots of pieces of silicon that are not host CPUs but which still run software every bit as interesting and sophisticated as what we already give people source code for. (Many of you have heard me rant about this before. Nothing much new here, just hit 'd' now if you already know where I'm going with this.) Take a modern supercomputer: there'll be a handful of amd64 chips that run Linux, but what you actually paid for is the several thousand PowerPC Cell cores. Is it really reasonable to waive the source code requirement for number-crunching libraries designed to run on the Cells? They certainly aren't the host CPU. As a variation on the modern supercomputer, take any code intended to run on an Nvidia GPU. People are apparently using those things for real computations now, s...@home type stuff. Take almost any embedded platform - PDA, phone, media player, or these days, all-of-the-above. Most people wouldn't think of them as having a host CPU at all, merely a controller that you upload data to via USB or Bluetooth. But of course they run OSes, sometimes Linux, maybe sometimes Debian. Would we want to ship PalmOS apps in Debian as blobs, without source code, merely because they don't execute on i386? Take qemu or MAME. Well, maybe not MAME, that's Ean's baby, but take qemu. Could we ship, without source code, full bootable OS images in Debian that are intended to run on an exotic architecture in qemu rather than on physical hardware? Surely qemu does not provide a host CPU. And of course there are those wireless routers where people talk about using such-and-such firmware, by which they really mean a blob containing a boot loader, Linux kernel, and root filesystem. Of course we know there is a MIPS chip in there, but the device is not sold as a computer or host, but as a mere device that you plug into your network along with your computers. -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New section for firmware.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 01:07:43PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I've been thinking about this proposal for some time, and I probably should have send this some time ago. At least some people seem to have had simular ideas, so I wonder why nobody propsed anything like this. The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host CPU. The new section should also be available on our CD/DVD images, so that users can just take a CD/DVD and that it works without having to search for the needed firmware and provide it on an other medium to the installer. While I think it would be reasonable to include sourceless firmware on our CDs and DVDs, I don't think this is actually a very good solution to the problem we face: - if they're included on the official Debian images, they need to meet Debian's definition of free. - if the firmware are considered free, then they can live in main. - if the images the firmware is included on aren't Debian images, then there will (presumably) still be demand for pure Debian images, and we don't need to add a new archive section in order to include non-Debian stuff on the images Having two sets of images doesn't make sense to me; the CD team have already posted publically this cycle about the infrastructure challenges involved with publishing those images that they already have to accomodate, doubling the image count doesn't sound feasible, IMHO. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: Having two sets of images doesn't make sense to me; the CD team have already posted publically this cycle about the infrastructure challenges involved with publishing those images that they already have to accomodate, doubling the image count doesn't sound feasible, IMHO. In addition, it should be fairly easy to add firmware D-I images; hd-media: mount cp ISOs: xorriso (command-line) or isomaster (GUI), or just mount and genisoimage. netboot: cp win32-loader: cp notepad So perhaps some extra info about remastering installation media in the d-i manual would be good for those like DSA who cannot just add the non-free firmware to removable media like a USB stick or floppy. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
