On Wed, Oct 29, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
I ackowledge that the current requirements of the social contract
as it's worded and intended require us to ship the source code of
the lib/firmware blobs.
Simply because anything that we ship as part of Debian must be
DFSG-free.
Yes; we agree
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, producing a Debian including free firmwares would be
superior than producing a Debian which ships non-free firmwares,
but the actual option at hand is producing a Debian without the
firmwares.
Since the Social Contract promises Debian
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
At least, that's my understanding of some of the use cases presented
here: that even the vendors of those blobs routinely modify the binary
blob directly to generate a new version of it, much like
bit-manipulating a
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Since the Social Contract promises Debian *won't* ship non-free
things, that's not an option compatible with the promises made by
the Debian project.
I might not have said it clearly enough:
- I agree the
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 15:15 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Since the Social Contract promises Debian *won't* ship non-free
things, that's not an option compatible with the promises made by the
Debian project.
I might not have said it clearly enough:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008, Jeff Carr wrote:
have little flash chips holding these bits all over in your machine
now. You just don't know it. And now, because someone is giving you
the luxury of actually loading them via software (with gpl software no
less) you seem to be all ticked off.
Right; I
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008, Jeff Carr wrote:
have little flash chips holding these bits all over in your
machine now. You just don't know it. And now, because someone is
giving you the luxury of actually loading them via software (with
gpl software no
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:51:55PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
*without* access to any specific extra data, vendor-specific programs,
or other non-free software.
I agree here, although, I wouldn't say the DFSG requires that source
code should be modifiable with software distributed in
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 22:51 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
What's relatively new is the realisation that some of those parts
(such as firmware) have a programmatic function but can, in some
cases, have *no* better form for making modifications than the binary
blob itself.
OK, to my eyes, this means
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the end, it comes down to the preferred form for modification
I am convinced that's the most useful place to draw the line, yes.
and the reality that the preferred form *can* include binary code,
machine code or any other data of a type that may
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
The requirement for the contents of Debian to be free is not a new
burden.
What's new here is the number of firmwares which one need to make a
computer useful and the consequence on the perimeter of the Debian
project.
It's spelled out in the
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
That means: free access to exactly the same form of the work that
the vendor might use to make modification to any part of the
operating system
So you consider the bits of code which runs on the hardware part
12 matches
Mail list logo
