eed
this up by making the critical path shorter. I suspect the debian-cd
team might also be seriously considering discontinuing the larger
installation images like the Blu-Ray and 16G USB stick - certainly I
would be, if I was them.
So if volunteers turn up to help build/test images without non-f
Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):
>> I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking
>> because of the concern that the latter option may have been ruled invalid
>> by
Steve McIntyre writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
> >easy for those who want to provide an unofficial full
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx writes ("General Resolution: non-free
>firmware: results"):
>> The results of the General Resolution about non-free firmware:
>> Option 5 "Change SC for no
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):
> I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking
> because of the concern that the latter option may have been ruled invalid
> by the Project Secretary. I prefer one
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>> Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
>> easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
>> to do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official
>> page, inverting the way we cur
Ian Jackson writes:
> Observe also that "Recommend installer containing non-free firmware"
> beat "Only one installer" by 12 votes.
I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking
because of the concern that the latter option may have be
Ian Jackson left as an exercise for the reader:
> 6 votes is a very tight margin between "one installer" and "two
> installers".
for anyone not doing the work of producing and staging two
installers, there was little real difference between these two
options (less potential confusion was the other
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
> easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
> to do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official
> page, inverting the
Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx writes ("General Resolution: non-free
firmware: results"):
> The results of the General Resolution about non-free firmware:
> Option 5 "Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer"
>
> The details of the r
Hi,
The results of the General Resolution about non-free firmware:
Option 5 "Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer"
The details of the results are available at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003
Kurt Roeckx
Debian Project Secretary
signature.asc
D
,
Devotee (on behalf of Debian Project Secretary)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Starting results calculation at Sun Oct 2 06:33:53 2022
Option 1 "Only one installer, including non-free firmware"
Option 2 "Recommend installer containing non-free firmware"
Option 3 &
Hi,
This is the first call for votes for the General Resolution about
non-free firmware.
Voting period starts 2022-09-18 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-10-01 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 04:50:41PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> Seconded. Thanks, Russ!
The signature check failed, and the discussion period is over.
Kurt
m to enable use of Debian with hardware that
> requires such firmware.
>
> The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the
> day:
>
> We will include non-free firmware packages from the "non-free-firmware"
> section of the Debian arch
g in this vote, however,
>> > is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than providing a 100% free
>> > Debian (guided by the DSC/DFSG) and using that as a tactic to change the
>> > world, Debian will (under A/E) provide a 99% free Debian.
>>
>> Stretching tha
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:54:01PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
> > harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
> > ever comes to it
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
> harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
> ever comes to it".
>
> Or even "I've seen this in other licenses, can't hurt, let's cop
herwise not
> part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that
> requires such firmware.
>
> The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the
> day:
>
> We will include non-free firmware packages from the "non-free-f
> seconded
Your message wasn't signed.
Kurt
> > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > > > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware
> > > > > stored in
> > > > > your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
&g
Hi Everyone
On 2022/09/07 18:26, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
As per the Debian Constitution[1] (4.2¶3), I'm requesting an extension
for the discussion period of 7 days.
Thank you all for taking the time to polish or add voting options over
the last week. I believe that the options w
nstaller images, for those cases were some included non-free
> stuff else might limit distribution, eg to Iran or Cuba etc or
> by imposing other restrictions...!
Thank you very much Holger!
> -
> Proposal F
>
> This ballot opt
On 9/14/22 17:00, Holger Levsen wrote:
hi,
I'm looking seconds for this new proposal below, which is like
proposal E plus *also* offering free installer image.
Rationale: we should keep producing fully freely distributable
Debian installer images, for those cases were some included non
nstaller images, for those cases were some included non-free
> stuff else might limit distribution, eg to Iran or Cuba etc or
> by imposing other restrictions...!
>
>
> -
> Proposal F
>
> This ballot option supersedes th
rt of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that
requires such firmware.
The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the day:
We will include non-free firmware packages from the "non-free-firmware" section
of the Debian archive on our
s_ changing tactics: rather than providing a 100% free
> > Debian (guided by the DSC/DFSG) and using that as a tactic to change the
> > world, Debian will (under A/E) provide a 99% free Debian.
>
> Stretching that metaphor a little: making non-free firmware available
>
bian installer images, for those cases were some included non-free
> stuff else might limit distribution, eg to Iran or Cuba etc or
> by imposing other restrictions...!
>
>
> -
> Proposal F
>
> This ballot option s
requires such firmware.
>
> The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the day:
>
> We will include non-free firmware packages from the "non-free-firmware"
> section of the Debian archive on our official media (installer images and
> live
nstaller images, for those cases were some included non-free
> stuff else might limit distribution, eg to Iran or Cuba etc or
> by imposing other restrictions...!
>
>
> -
> Proposal F
>
> This ballot option supersedes th
* Holger Levsen [2022-09-14 15:00]:
hi,
I'm looking seconds for this new proposal below, which is like
proposal E plus *also* offering free installer image.
Rationale: we should keep producing fully freely distributable
Debian installer images, for those cases were some included non
er images, for those cases were some included non-free
>stuff else might limit distribution, eg to Iran or Cuba etc or
>by imposing other restrictions...!
>
>
>-
>Proposal F
>
>This ballot option supersedes the Debian Soc
hi,
I'm looking seconds for this new proposal below, which is like
proposal E plus *also* offering free installer image.
Rationale: we should keep producing fully freely distributable
Debian installer images, for those cases were some included non-free
stuff else might limit distribution,
an time the physical representation has changed, but
still, SD cards are inherently non-free in many ways, even if the data
on them is purely free.
I'd suggest that there's always been a fuzzy tide-mark showing where you
should stop worrying too much about the freeness we can achieve.
Str
gh my perception is that Debian is another
> lighthouse here, and that this is fine. Debians' DFSG and the rejection
> of GFDL Invariant sections are ridiculed elsewhere much the same way the
> FSF's positions on non-free firmware is ridiculed here. I happen to
> like these light
> > > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored
> > > > in
> > > > your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
> > >
> > > My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are muc
different_ compromises, and have _different_ red lines
>> for what they consider unacceptable.
>>
>> To illustrate, Debian does not consider a work under the GFDL with an
>> invariant section to be free, and (as far as I understand) would not
>> permit them in
te, Debian does not consider a work under the GFDL with an
> invariant section to be free, and (as far as I understand) would not
> permit them in main or in the Debian installer. Disallowing
> modifications is quite similar to the terms for some non-free firmware.
>
> It is easy
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> > your hardware is better than having it loaded from y
Le Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:29:07AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> I believe the Debian project is permitted to publish non-free installers
> under the current DSC/DFSG (which it actually is doing today; just
> hidden), but according to the DSC it is
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
more favorable
Le Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:19:59PM +, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> On September 12, 2022 8:23:22 PM UTC, Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> >Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> >> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to requir
Debian
and FSF makes _different_ compromises, and have _different_ red lines
for what they consider unacceptable.
To illustrate, Debian does not consider a work under the GFDL with an
invariant section to be free, and (as far as I understand) would not
permit them in main or in the Debian installe
Tobias Frost writes:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free
>> system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so.
>>
>> For example,
On 12/09/22 at 12:08 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
> > To me, the FSF's attempts to produce an operating system lead to the
> > range of GNU/Linux distributions that came about during that time, which
> > we all still use.
>
> Right, I think both things are true.
>
> I thi
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free
> system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so.
>
> For example, I install the firmware-iwlwifi package on my laptop
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:23:22PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
> > non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
> > hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for
gt;> if you pick the right hardware, Debian works directly today.
>>
>> By "right hardware", I assume you mean hardware that comes with already
>> preinstalled non-free software?
>
> Yes, or (preferrably) hardware that does not come with non-free software
> at al
mean hardware that comes with already
> preinstalled non-free software?
Yes, or (preferrably) hardware that does not come with non-free software
at all.
> Does choosing only hardware with preinstalled non-free software
> (instead of partially OS-supplied non-free firmware) make the non-free
Richard Laager writes:
> I agree insofar as: E > B > C > NOTA > D
> I put A in a different spot: A > B > C. You have B > C > A.
> E is A plus the SC modification. With E as your first choice, why
> wouldn't you put A > B?
I'm concerned about the potential complications of a conflict with the S
In reading your messages, I think I have the same position as you, but
I'm confused by our different tentative rankings.
On 9/12/22 15:13, Russ Allbery wrote:
For full disclosure, my vote is likely E>B>C>A>NOTA>D.)
I agree insofar as: E > B > C > NOTA > D
I put A in a different spot: A > B >
stairs of the pragmatists'
>> ivory tower to the point where it suffers from the ills of purism: by
>> forbidding the free installer, the pragmatist becomes the mirror image
>> of a purist that wants to forbid everything that doesn't comply with its
>> own ideal
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:18:13PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Russ Allbery writes:
...
>Okay. But given a situation when someone comes to you with a hardware
>component that requires non-free software to work, and asks you to
>install Debian on it, would you resolve tha
On September 12, 2022 8:23:22 PM UTC, Bill Allombert
wrote:
>Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
>> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
>> non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on
Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
> non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
> hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
> el
ding the free installer, the pragmatist becomes the mirror image
> of a purist that wants to forbid everything that doesn't comply with its
> own ideal.
> In my mind, the pragmatic approch is to publish both the free and
> non-free installer.
So, spoiler, while I'm going
Thanks for long post, thoughtful and I only have a reflection left:
>> Okay. But given a situation when someone comes to you with a hardware
>> component that requires non-free software to work, and asks you to
>> install Debian on it, would you resolve that by
>
>>
Hi,
On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 21:03 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> My experience is the same as you describe, with the free installer:
> if you pick the right hardware, Debian works directly today.
By "right hardware", I assume you mean hardware that comes with already
prein
n't
>> have to run ancient gear.
> Do you mean install Debian using our non-free installer?
Yes. I've had to use the non-free installer for every system I've
installed Debian on in the last ten years, and I have had to use at least
some non-free packages on nearly every
recognizing
>> that sometimes for some people that would include non-free software.
>> That upset the FSF quite a bit; they considered (and I believe
>> consider) Debian to not "really" be a free software project because of
>> this stance.
> Isn't the Debia
mmediately* because Linux now supports modern hardware and you don't
> have to run ancient gear.
Do you mean install Debian using our non-free installer?
I've seen several times here the argument that Debian does NOT work on
modern hardware, and that's why Debian must change or
The FSF
> decided to go down the route of ideological purism: they made the absolute
> minimum number of compromises possible and then shed them as soon as
> possible. Debian instead took the route of practicality and tried to make
> the operating system usable and flexible, recognizing tha
s Free than what you had in the 1990s:
in both cases, if you're using a Free OS and Free drivers, you get
total control over what's running on the main-CPU side of the bus, and
no control over what's running on the peripheral device side of the bus
(other than to the extent that it c
Russ Allbery dijo [Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:52:46AM -0700]:
> If we happen to fall down this leg of the Trousers of Time, I would be
> inclined to explicitly reinstate option A in any SC ballot options that
> would make A consistent with the SC as revised.
>
> In practice, I think this specific out
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Now, my thinking wandered off to the following timeline:
> almost-nowoVoting is open with the A,B,C,D,E option set.
> |We know the Secretary has warned that some options
> |winning might trigger his obligation to mark the
>
re because it works on the
new, shiny things they're interested in. The days where you had to point
people at extensive tables and wikis to figure out if Linux is even an
option for them are long gone, and good riddance.
These are people we always *wanted* to reach, and *tried* to reach
Social Contract,
> and then will look at starting a separate GR to update SC point 5 based on
> the outcome of that vote.
> (...)
Yes. I completely agree with your rationale here. Particularly the
point about "non-free-firmware installer" and "SC#5
updating/rewording" b
1990's. Often it was never possible to get some
hardware to work with free software, especially laptops. This has
pretty much been the same since then. I see no signs of this ever
changing while new hardware that requires non-free software is
introduced. It takes time until free sof
SF
decided to go down the route of ideological purism: they made the absolute
minimum number of compromises possible and then shed them as soon as
possible. Debian instead took the route of practicality and tried to make
the operating system usable and flexible, recognizing that sometimes for
some
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 05:00:37PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>What still puzzles me is that I regarded myself as having worked with a
>lot of computer hardware over the years, without experiencing the kind
>of situation described here. Yes, some hardware doesn't work with
>Debian, but no I w
Steve McIntyre writes:
>>I think the difference of opinion is that your proposal is based on the
>>argument that it is worth compromising on the ideals of free software in
>>order to allow users to be able to run free software. I disagree with
>>that opinion. If you disagree with my characteriz
ller (proposal A and E). How would
you install any of the free Debian packages without a free installer, if
you care about not running proprietary software? It seems similar to
the walled garden of non-free app stores.
>> I think I'm missing a better problem statement to motivat
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 02:16:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> However, I feel strongly that the non-free installer *has* to be
> handled differently. If not, we're choosing to fail on (some of) our
> principles. This is why I'm here with this GR after all.
So do I. Or does
.
It seems that there is a trend where "firmware" is moving away from
"ROM" (generally writable flash) into RAM. That is, in years past, the
firmware came preloaded on the device, but now the driver pushes it at boot.
This has certainly drawn our attention to the non-free bits. B
Paul Wise writes:
> Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates,
> except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
I think that may be true from the perspective of what Debian is *allowed*
to do, but not in the sense of the guidance that the proj
Holger Levsen writes:
> or maybe, it's possible to reword option E, because my only problem
> is with the last sentence which reads
> "We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing
> the current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packa
On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:28 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> * Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
> tl;dr: No
> * Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/683a7c0e69b081aae8c46bd4027bf75
e done, balancing the two priorities we
identify in the SC: our users and free software. Each developer in the
project will have their own position on this, and I'm immensely happy
that we've had some healthy and respectful debate here. Thanks to
everybody for that.
>Also, to be clear
firmware blobs freely redistributable spefically to enable
Linux distros to provide them to users, rather than only embedding
them in the Windows or Mac OS drivers.
In this world, we have a lot of users with hardware that currently
depends on non-free firmware uploads to be functional. Telling use
to do, not what users should do.
>Specifically, we should avoid including text that attempts to tell
>them what they need to do, such as:
>
>> We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
>> to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whethe
[ Apologies for going quiet again - it's been a busy few days,
including testing and publishing two sets of point release images. ]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Steve McIntyre writes:
>
>> That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks!
>
>Steve, what do you
Hi Russ,
thank you for working on option E! :)
that said, I think I want option F, where F is to E what B is to A,
(according how I read https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 now)
or IOW, option E where both types of installers (with and without
non-free firmwarez) are offered. (so a new
t is that this GR is primarily intended to provide project
guidance to the team working on the installer and installation media, at
their explicit request, on how to handle non-free firmware. I think the
options already on the ballot provide a good range of possible decisions
the project can make and
r problem is the ability to distribute the installer. Even when
> non-free work is not executed by hardware during installation (e.g., by
> user choice) does not mean all is well: You usually need to comply with
> non-free licensing terms to be able to distribute non-free works.
Yes, th
ut they will spend the next 20 or 30 years
commenting how debian is broken (regardless of what the current status
might be at that point) putting off potential users that might actually believe
them.
I still regularly see comments on how KDE is bad because it relies on non-free
qt libraries.
--
Sa
I was asked offlist to answer how Proposal D would affect the display of
the non-free installer on Debian websites, and in particular:
* Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
tl;dr: No
* Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
https
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> >> appears solved or possible
p building or working on it.
>
> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
> non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
> hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
> else's choices and taking on the r
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 10:13:26AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> > appears solved or possible to solve.
>
> As I understand it there ar
Paul Wise writes:
> On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
>> appears solved or possible to solve.
>
> As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
>
>
On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> appears solved or possible to solve.
As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 12:46:05PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
> content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
> I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
good t
Russ Allbery writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
>> content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
>> I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
>
&
On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 19:54 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Syria are excl
On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 10:48 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If there is time left, though, I'm considering proposing the following
> option based on my earlier message, just so that there's something on the
> ballot that explicitly modifies the Social Contract to allow for non-
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:01:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> On 2022/09/09 18:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
> > use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
> > Software Guidelin
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:13:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>
> If we were to include any non-free software/firmware on something that's
> called official Debian installer media that is said to conform to our
> standards
That's exactly the point of cha
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:04:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We probably do need to say something about how you need to review the
> licenses for non-free software before using or distributing it. This is
> true for users as well.
>
> How about:
>
> We encourage
, and then stop. Specifically, we should avoid
including text that attempts to tell them what they need to do, such as:
We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether
they can distribute it on their media or products.
1 - 100 of 1001 matches
Mail list logo
