Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008, Robert Collins wrote: > > I wish I understood the reasoning here - putting aside the fact > > that most of the software in Debian is under a copyleft licence > > and so we *must* provide the source. Why is the source for the > > radio on my wifi card any *less* critical than the source for the > > driver for my wifi card? > > Because I can consider the wifi firmware a subsystem which doesn't > contaminate my main OS
It seems to me that you can only honestly consider it so if it *actually does not* contaminate the main OS. The situation we're faced with is that non-free works *do* contaminate the main OS; that's the reason we're having these discussions about DFSG violation at all. > Now if Debian can distribute a blob which allows my hardware to run > as indicated by a clear interface with my free OS, that's good > enough for me. The result can't be called free, though. So long as Debian is promised to be free, I expect that promise to be met. It seems, from what you say here, that you do not expect that promise to be met. > And if we don't require the hardware to be freely modifiable, why > require the firmware to be so? Because it's distributed in an operating system — Debian — that its distributor — the Debian project — promises is freely modifiable (among other freedoms). When someone distributes hardware to me and promises it is freely modifiable, I require *that* promise to be upheld also. -- \ “I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate | `\ those who do. And for the people who like country music, | _o__) denigrate means ‘put down’.” —Bob Newhart | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
