On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> So realistically, let's be honest with ourselves. Not supporting
> devices that require non-free firmwares is not going to help make the
> world a better place. What it will probably do is that users, once
> they find out that that a Debian
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another consequence of making it easy for the users to add non-free to
> the repositories so they can download firmware necessary to make their
> hardware useful is that a huge number of users may end up enabling
> non-free just to make their hardware work,
Am 2008-11-10 12:56:26, schrieb Karl Goetz:
> Why are they making hardware that can transmit on *any* frequency? Why
> are they not making hardware that transmits in the 2.4GHz ISM band
> perhaps with firmware to 'fine tune' it? Seems strange to pour lots of
> money into making an all-band radio th
Am 2008-11-10 09:54:24, schrieb Johannes Wiedersich:
> I think the best way out of this dilemma is to add a 'non-free firmware'
> section and make this section part of official debian. A provision is
But this should be a "volatile" archive, which allow the upload of new
firmware releases and not
Am 2008-11-09 12:19:06, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
> Why in the world would we do that when we have all that???s needed to
> simply move the firmware images to non-free?
And what, if peoples do not want to use non-free but get there hardware
working?
The best would be to create a new flavour cal
Am 2008-11-08 15:29:44, schrieb Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> It seems to me that, if this is really true, then the hardware
> manufacturers have been lying to the FCC for years, claiming that the
> user cannot reprogram the card, without explaining that, in fact, it's
> just that users may not know how t
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Why not just support it in non-free exactly the way we do other things?
Indeed. Arguably, documentation is even more important than making
non-Free firmware trivially-accessible to users, and users might be
tempted to add non-free to their repo s
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:56:26PM +1030, Karl Goetz wrote:
> Why are they making hardware that can transmit on *any* frequency? Why
> are they not making hardware that transmits in the 2.4GHz ISM band
> perhaps with firmware to 'fine tune' it? Seems strange to pour lots of
> money into making an a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
>>Fortunately for us, at the
>> moment I am not aware of large numbers of highly popular laptops or
>> servers for which non-free firmware
Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 à 03:28 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> Myself, I'd like a Debian fork with RHEL kernels anyway...
lol
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`-our
On Nov 08, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So while I am personally of the DFSG only makes sense for executable
> *software* that runs on the host CPU, previous GR's have shown that
> this position has a distinct minority. So why not let the DFSG
> hard-liners win this one completely?
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:47:01PM +, David Given wrote:
> > In which case things have changed within the past couple of years ---
> > after all, the whole purpose of the Atheros HAL was to inforce those FCC
> > limits. Do you have any re
Joey Hess wrote:
> http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/
>
> I'm not sure what to do about both the Debian project being generally
> unaware of functionality already present in Debian. Document it better?
It's al
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/
I'm not sure what to do about both the Debian project being generally
unaware of functionality already present in Debian. Document it better?
Wet fishes applied to anyone who st
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 06:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Because according to you, Debian isn't allowed to ship any non-free
> bits, right?
No, not right. Please pay attention.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROT
Hi,
On Sunday 09 November 2008 13:37, Paul Wise wrote:
> The images don't include non-free stuff, but they do allow loading
> non-free firmware. Joey Hess blogged about how it works here:
>
> http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading/
So all we need is just a download location for
Hi there!
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:37:24 +0100, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the proposal is to delay the release to make sure that **all** bits
>> are moved into the non-free section, what about the debian
>> installation CD itself
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the proposal is to delay the release to make sure that **all** bits
> are moved into the non-free section, what about the debian
> installation CD itself? If it is true that __Debian__ never includes
> any DFSG bits, I w
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:24:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Neither does it (currently) contain an exception for debian.org
> > machines, or very popular Dell machines with Broadcom ethernet
> > firmware. Great! Cut them off!! Let's see how quickly we can get
> > users moving to non
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an interesting problem with DFSG-free firmware such as those
> created by the FreeMAC project (for prism54 cards): if they never get FCC-
> certified, is it legal for Debian to distribute them?
That would be something
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd prefer to see firmware in a separate section, because it will be
> easier to get that section enabled by default for new installs. This will
> mean that the installer, or something hooked up to udev/hal, etc., will
> be ab
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:39:26 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> So if people think that they are going to be able to get firmware in
> source form so that popular wireless chips can be driven using 100% DFSG
> pure firmware, I suspect they will have a very long wait ahead of them.
> The issue is that s
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:24:16 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 00:39 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> > And none of this is really relevent: the DFSG and the Social Contract
>> > do not contain an exception for dishonest or scared hardware
>> > manufacturers, or stupid FCC pol
Le samedi 08 novembre 2008 à 18:55 -0500, Theodore Tso a écrit :
> And as I said, I think we should let the DFSG hard-liners win. Let's
> yank all of the binaries that require a firmware, and release Lenny
> as-is. If that causes some users switch to some fork that actually
> has a kernel that wo
Ben Finney (2008-11-09 10:54 +1100) wrote:
> We don't distribute non-free *anything* in Debian. That's what our
> users are promised, at any rate.
Yes, this claim has been repeated many times, but as a thought-exercise
let us be more concrete: who exactly are those users who have been
promised? I
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oooh does that means Debian is distributing non-free bits?
Yes, same as we've been doing for years - in the non-free part of the archive.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 00:39 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > And none of this is really relevent: the DFSG and the Social Contract do
> > not contain an exception for dishonest or scared hardware manufacturers,
> > or stupid FCC policies.
>
> Neither does it (currently) contain an exception for debi
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 12:21:26PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Another choice open to Debian is to make it easier for users to opt
> > into downloading firmware --- perhaps by making very easy through the
> > installer to
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 05:05:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> But now we have this claim that the FCC's well-understood rule about
> hardware does not apply to software: that software modifications *are*
> traceable back to the manufacturer, even though hardware modifications
> are not.
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another choice open to Debian is to make it easier for users to opt
> into downloading firmware --- perhaps by making very easy through the
> installer to select the non-free section.
For machines where non-free firmware is
This one time, at band camp, Ben Hutchings said:
> On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 00:39 +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Nov 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >
> > >Fortunately for us, at the
> > > moment I am not aware of large numbers of highly popular l
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 18:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> The FCC understands that you can't make it *impossible*. Even before
> software radios, it was understood that someone posessing the skills,
> say, of an amateur radio operator might be able to add a resistor or
> capacitor in parallel wi
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 00:39 +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> >Fortunately for us, at the
> > moment I am not aware of large numbers of highly popular laptops or
> > servers for which non-free firmware is necess
Peter wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
>>Fortunately for us, at the
>> moment I am not aware of large numbers of highly popular laptops or
>> servers for which non-free firmware is necessary before the firmware
>> would be able to access
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 03:29:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > There are corporate lawyers who are very much afraid that the FCC
> > could, if they were alerted to the fact that someone had figured out
> > how to reverse engineer th
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Regardless, the DFSG doesn't say anything about "unless the FCC has
> an annoying rule". We don't distribute non-free software in Debian.
To forestall yet another round of debate about software vs. firmware:
We don't distribute non-free *anything*
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
>Fortunately for us, at the
> moment I am not aware of large numbers of highly popular laptops or
> servers for which non-free firmware is necessary before the firmware
> would be able to access the network.
HP D
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> There are corporate lawyers who are very much afraid that the FCC
> could, if they were alerted to the fact that someone had figured out
> how to reverse engineer the HAL and/or the firmware to cause their
> WiFi unit to become a "super radio
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:47:01PM +, David Given wrote:
> In which case things have changed within the past couple of years ---
> after all, the whole purpose of the Atheros HAL was to inforce those FCC
> limits. Do you have any references? Like, to an FCC statement of policy
> change? If so,
39 matches
Mail list logo
