Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 10:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno a écrit : > I haven't say that because they are not executed on by the CPU they are > more free. What I mean is that we have those discussions because they > are not executed on the main CPU, which makes them different than other > non-DFSG compliant software. Then some people consider that acceptable, > some other not.
This case is very similar to non-free documentation, which is not
executed on any CPU at all. It sounds bogus to split firmware in a
specific archive and to not do it for documentation, data, etc.
If you want to make a specific distinction for software for which we
don’t have a source and which is executed on the host CPU, I’d prefer to
see the non-free rules updated to ban such software from our archive,
and to add restrictions to it such as:
* availability of source code (for binaries meant for the host
CPU);
* legal possibility to autobuild the package (for arch-any ones);
* legal possibility to add patches for security updates.
This way we could add the non-free archive to sources.list without
wondering whether installing stuff from it will introduce an unfixable
root security hole. If more and more systems need non-free because of
firmware, this is a move that I’d like to see.
--
.''`.
: :' : 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
