On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 08:02:28PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:42:23PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Contrib exists for software dependencies. This is not a software
> > dependency issue. There is no direct relationship between firmware and
> > drivers.
>
> I don't
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:52:36PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
>> In the case of a device driver, that dependency would still be there if
>> the firmware was in ROM. Which would put pretty much all of our device
>> drivers, X (talks to VESA code), APM a
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:34:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Yes. Once you eliminate the dependency on the non-free file the driver
>> becomes suitable for main.
>
> The driver does not have /any/ dependency on a non-free file. It will
> fu
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 21:51 +0200, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
>>
>> > Adam Heath wrote:
>> > > Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
>> > > mean, is being able to use it in a
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 00:05 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
>>
>> > My recollection is that all technical concerns were addressed and that
>> > the port would go in after the mirror issue
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> Apart from being ugly the above is perfectly legal and nothing
> speaks
> against adding it, _provided_ this is the source. I have actually seen
> GPL sources with such byte sequences in it
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
>>
>>A good hardware design would put this code in FLASH on the board.
>
> Depends on what you mean by a "good hardware design". For example, a
> lot of the USB dongles becoming common would be significantly bigger
> and/or more expe
I demand that Matthew Garrett may or may not have written...
[snip]
> xine should certainly remain within main - it's useful without any non-free
> software.
Agreed. (Presumably, you mean libxine, since it's that, not any of the front
ends [1] which actually does the dlopen()ing of non-free code.
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
>>It's free, but it has a non-optional dependency on non-free software, which
>>means contrib, not main.
>>
> In the case of a device driver, that dependency would still be there
> if the firmware was in ROM. Which would put pretty
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is a driver that loads a BLOB Free Software? The problem is
> connected with distribution. The BLOB is unquestionably software. It
> runs below the bus,
Yes, I would agree that a non software blob is so unlikely that we can
rule it out. If it is non-soft
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:45:23AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * John Hasler
>
> | William Ballard writes:
> | > The Bible should be in Debian. But the Koran, the Torah, and the Vishnu
> | > texts (name escapes me at the moment) should all be in there too.
> |
> | Debian is not Project Gute
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:06:11PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> >
> > True, the Koran just invites to kill your ennemy bloodily, that's very
> > different...
>
> Thats wrong, thats just an interpretion.
I wonder how could text be written such that the question wether it invites
to kill s
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:03:42AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
>
> Yes, you are being absurd. Since you are presumably not understanding the
> point, let me explain more clearly:
>
> Pornography is widely regarded as being demeaning and insulting to women.
The female body is beautiful. Why w
Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Dec 2004, at 11:16 pm, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 23:12 +, Tim Cutts a écrit :
>>> If Debian tries to be too rigid, we run a serious risk of consigning
>>> ourselves to history, because people just won't install Debia
Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Dec 2004, at 12:24 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 15:21 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>>> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 09, Bruce Perens <[
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Also why would anyone be forced to distribute the blob? The problem
isn't that we have to distribute the blob. The problem is how "free"
do we judge the driver to be.
We judge that by the DFSG. The DFSG doesn't include any language about
dependencies on non-free soft
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:52:36PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> In the case of a device driver, that dependency would still be there if
> the firmware was in ROM. Which would put pretty much all of our device
> drivers, X (talks to VESA code), APM and ACPI (talks to BIOS), and so
> on, in contri
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn,
>If you don't have a physical copy of the device, the driver doesn't work
> either. Very similarly to the way it would act if you don't have the
> firmware. The problem is that we have to distribute the f
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:49:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 02:23:16PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> > While you have your pen and paper out, go ahead and write some hardware
>> > that a contrib device driver can use without
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Le samedi 11 d=E9cembre 2004 =E0 21:47 +, Matthew Garrett a =E9crit :
>>> We put it in contrib
>>> so that people know that by using this software, they will also have to
>>> use non-free code. This is
Glenn Maynard wrote:
It's free, but it has a non-optional dependency on non-free software, which
means contrib, not main.
In the case of a device driver, that dependency would still be there if
the firmware was in ROM. Which would put pretty much all of our device
drivers, X (talks to VESA code),
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 21:51 +0200, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
>
> > Adam Heath wrote:
> > > Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
> > > mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
> > >
>
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
> > mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
> >
> > Ie, multiple input methods: .deb, .rpm, filesystem
> >
> > filter mode:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:48:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> If you don't have a physical copy of the device, the driver doesn't work
> either. Very similarly to the way it would act if you don't have the
> firmware. The problem is that /we /have to distribute the firmware when
> it's a BLOB.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> What about the rest of the driver? I think that if you remove the BLOB,
> it's Free Software. It talks to a bus interface, which is a natural
> demarcation between our Free Software and the proprietary hardware
> design. It loads an
Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>A good hardware design would put this code in FLASH on the board.
Depends on what you mean by a "good hardware design". For example, a
lot of the USB dongles becoming common would be significantly bigger
and/or more expensive if they had to have sufficient space on-board
for
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:42:23PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Fundamentally, I think it comes down to this: we have to draw the line
> somewhere, and that line has always been drawn at the software/hardware
> boundary. Neither the Linux kernel nor Debian have ever considered the
> "freeness" of
Brian Nelson wrote:
We're not really in any position to say where firmware belongs.
We are in a position to say what sort of hardware we want to support.
Indeed, we have a lot to say about that. I guess I should write it down.
Flash memory has a finite life, and repeatedly flashing it will eve
Matthew Garrett wrote:
How does moving firmware from the disk to the hardware (therefore making
it harder to modify and more expensive) further the cause of free
software?
If you want to drive manufacturers to open their firmware, it doesn't. I
am not sure that we should be driving manufacturer
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:08:12PM +0100, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:
> Hello.
> Paul Hampson:
> > The email address isn't important, since
> > that has to be a subset of ASCII anyway.
> Are the Unicode-encoded domain names
> supported in (modern) browsers only?
>
> I can surf to http://Å.pl
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is a driver that loads a BLOB Free Software? The problem is connected
> with distribution. The BLOB is unquestionably software. It runs below
> the bus, which is our /usual /demarcation between Free Software and the
> rest of the system, but it starts li
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the manufacturer wants their device to be supported, they can put a
> fifty-cent FLASH chip on their hardware and program it before the sale.
> Debian should be pro-active in publishing a list of devices that require
> BLOBs in their drivers, so that
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:24:16PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Tim Cutts wrote:
>
> >If Debian tries to be too rigid, we run a serious risk of consigning
> >ourselves to history, because people just won't install Debian any
> >more if it doesn't work out-of-the-box on most hardware - and the ti
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Apart from being ugly the above is perfectly legal and nothing speaks
against adding it, _provided_ this is the source. I have actually seen
GPL sources with such byte sequences in it for cases where the
toolchain couldn't emit the right opcodes.
Yes, but in t
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> > My recollection is that all technical concerns were addressed and that
> > the port would go in after the mirror issues will be sorted out (which
> > will happen some point after sar
Glenn,
If you don't have a physical copy of the device, the driver doesn't
work either. Very similarly to the way it would act if you don't have
the firmware. The problem is that we have to distribute the
firmware when it's a BLOB.
Thanks
Bruce
Glenn Maynard wrote:
If the driver
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
That assumes all non-free (as in speech) firmware is also non-free (as
in beer). This is simply not true; in fact, since they are in the
kernel, I'd think they are free (as in beer).
Actually, a number of device manufacturers have not allowed sublicensing
of their BLOBs.
Si comunica che la seguente casella di posta Email è cambiata in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Grazie
Is a driver that loads a BLOB Free Software? The problem is connected
with distribution. The BLOB is unquestionably software. It runs below
the bus, which is our usual demarcation between Free Software
and the rest of the system, but it starts life above the bus at boot
time, and we have to dis
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:49:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 02:23:16PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > While you have your pen and paper out, go ahead and write some hardware
> > that a contrib device driver can use without needing firmware loadable
> > by the kernel. P
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 11:35:22AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> apt-get and apt-cache are my friends, and I love them for letting me
> specify what I want to do in a way that is intuitive to me. Altough I
> wish I could tab-complete package names sometimes. ^_^
If you're running bash you can so
Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've always thought that people who say they hate dselect (or, worse,
> that dselect is crap) fall into one of the following cases:
>
> (a) allergic to text-mode interfaces
> (b) type or click without thinking
> (c) haven't used it for more than 5 yea
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:25:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Bug #270388 regards the cedet-common package breaking emacs -batch. A
> proposed fix in the bug report is for cedet-common to Pre-Depend on emacs21
> | emacsen instead of depending on it.
>
> An NMU based on this proposed fix has a
Tim Cutts wrote:
If Debian tries to be too rigid, we run a serious risk of consigning
ourselves to history, because people just won't install Debian any
more if it doesn't work out-of-the-box on most hardware - and the time
is pretty much already here that most systems contain at least one
comp
Tim Cutts wrote:
Maybe not most, but many, and the proportion is increasing. If we
force these into contrib, then a lot of hardware will not work out of
the box for people trying to install Debian. Especially wireless
cards on laptops.
This is likely to put people off the distribution.
This i
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 17:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op vr, 10-12-2004 te 15:38 +, schreef Will Newton:
> > Do you see why it seems like Debian is more of a political talking shop
> > that a
> > team trying to develop an operating system?
>
> Debian has always been a political organi
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 21:51 +0200, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
>
>> Adam Heath wrote:
>> > Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
>> > mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
>> >
>> >
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 23:34 +, Tim Cutts a écrit :
> > "Most systems" ? Come on.
>
> I don't think it's the case today, but I think that it will be soon.
> It's the way the world is going.
People have been saying so for years, and we still run on most systems
without a non-free firmw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I do not believe that this is obvious. I understand that FSF disagrees,
>> > and considers firmwares to be just "data".
>>
>> Would you accept a patch for ppp of the form:
>>
>> char data
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 00:05 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
>
> > My recollection is that all technical concerns were addressed and that
> > the port would go in after the mirror issues will be sorted out (which
> > will happen som
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think it's a step in the right direction for "free"
> hardware. By moving firmware off the device and into the operating
> system, we inherently gain more control over it. In the near future,
> firmware will likely remain as a binary blob wi
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:36:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think it's the case today, but I think that it will be soon.
> > It's the way the world is going.
>
> Especially if we and others just give in and say "ok, that's fine."
Act
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:34:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Yes. Once you eliminate the dependency on the non-free file the driver
> becomes suitable for main.
The driver does not have /any/ dependency on a non-free file. It will
function perfectly without the non-free file.
The devic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I know about no drivers which are useless without a non-free firmware,
>> > while I know about a huge number of hardware devices which are useless
>> > without a non-free firmware.
>
>> So
Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think it's the case today, but I think that it will be soon.
> It's the way the world is going.
Especially if we and others just give in and say "ok, that's fine."
On 11 Dec 2004, at 11:16 pm, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 23:12 +, Tim Cutts a écrit :
If Debian tries to be too rigid, we run a serious risk of consigning
ourselves to history, because people just won't install Debian any
more
if it doesn't work out-of-the-box on most
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:07:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I'm concerned, distr
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:25:53AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> As a rule of thumb ask yourself: Can I take out the harddisk and
> sell it including contents?
>
> With non-free firmware copied from a CD you can't. You have to remove
> the firmware first.
That assumes all non-free (as in s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Your case of hardware wich already includes firmware is totaly
>> irelevant since Debian does not distributes hardware, does not even
>> stand for free hardware nor do debs have to depend on
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>
>> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > You aren't reading what I've written. Virtually 100% of firmware
>> > out there (included on the device or loaded externally) is non-free. By
>> > your reasoning, the e
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 23:12 +, Tim Cutts a écrit :
> If Debian tries to be too rigid, we run a serious risk of consigning
> ourselves to history, because people just won't install Debian any more
> if it doesn't work out-of-the-box on most hardware - and the time is
> pretty much alre
On 11 Dec 2004, at 1:39 am, Brian Nelson wrote:
As for whether Debian would actually distribute the firmware blobs in
main, I would prefer that we do. It can be a real pain installing
Debian on a system in which I have to retrieve the firmware from an
external source. It's only hurting the end-us
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 22:26 +, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> xine should certainly remain within main - it's useful without any
> non-free software. But then compare to, say, kernel-patch-2.6-bluez -
> all the devices that this code will work with have non-free firmware,
> though only one
On 11 Dec 2004, at 12:24 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 15:21 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 09, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Then we might as well remove the
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 21:47 +, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > With drivers that load external firmware files this split is possible
>> > leaving the driver in main inside the kernel and
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> With drivers that load external firmware files this split is possible
>> leaving the driver in main inside the kernel and the non DFSG free
>> firmware in non-free.
>
> This argument suggests that we
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> My recollection is that all technical concerns were addressed and that
> the port would go in after the mirror issues will be sorted out (which
> will happen some point after sarge).
Why after sarge? Nobody knows when sarge wi
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 02:23:16PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> While you have your pen and paper out, go ahead and write some hardware
> that a contrib device driver can use without needing firmware loadable
> by the kernel. Put the firmware on the device itself. That contrib
> driver is now com
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:37:01PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:53:10PM +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > * Package name: unlzx
> > Version : x.y.z
> > Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * URL
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:44:54 +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: undms
> Version : x.y.z
> Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Tritscher)
> * URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?undms
> * License
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 11:44 -0800, Brian Nelson a écrit :
>> > For a single package that won't work without the binary blob, that's a
>> > good policy.
>>
>> It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
>>
>> Virtually *all* device d
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It also means that I can upload a kernel image that contains all these
> drivers, ensure that it's ABI compatible with the "official" kernels,
> and then build udebs containing the firmware-requiring drivers. These
> could then be grabbed by d-i. The d
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, because we have chosen a limited set of goals. We are for free
> > software, not Curing All The World's Ills. There is nothing
> > hypocritical about Debian deciding to attack one problem (non
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 11 d=E9cembre 2004 =E0 21:47 +, Matthew Garrett a =E9crit :
>> We put it in contrib
>> so that people know that by using this software, they will also have to
>> use non-free code. This is less obvious for drivers that use firmware in
>> f
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:07:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> > As far as I'm concerned, distribution of the firmware is the
>>> > manufacturer'
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:53:10PM +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: unlzx
> Version : x.y.z
> Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?unlzx
> * License
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This argument suggests that we can shift drivers from contrib to main
>> simply by turning them into kernel patches and getting them included in
>> the stock kernel. This seems, uh, odd.
>
> That's o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: undms
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Tritscher)
* URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?undms
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
Description : unpacks DMS (Disk
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: unlzx
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?unlzx
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
Description : unarchiver for *.lzx archive
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, because we have chosen a limited set of goals. We are for free
> software, not Curing All The World's Ills. There is nothing
> hypocritical about Debian deciding to attack one problem (non-free
> software) without attacking a different problem
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 21:51 +0200, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
> > mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
> >
> > Ie, multiple input methods: .deb, .rpm, filesystem
> >
>
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 21:47 +, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With drivers that load external firmware files this split is possible
> > leaving the driver in main inside the kernel and the non DFSG free
> > firmware in non-free.
>
> Th
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, but it does. Having the source code to the firmware of my DVD drive
> would allow me to remove some silly restrictions. I've even got software
> that would allow me to reflash it. Now, you could make the argument that
> if I bought the DVD drive th
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>> And yet, in this case the non-freeness of the software isn't hurting
>> the user. The point isn't whether the firmware "exists", the point is
>> whether the user is being prevented from modifying it by licensing or
>> non-so
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The dependency still exists - it just isn't expressed within the terms
>> of our package management system. I am entirely happy to describe this
>> distinction as arbitrary.
>
> And yet, in this case th
On Dec 11, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All hardware depends on non-free software. If you want to lobby for all
> > hardware to be free, including the firmware/BIOS/whatever, then fine.
> > That's a noble war to wage and I'd support your efforts.
> Really? Will you support
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This argument suggests that we can shift drivers from contrib to main
> simply by turning them into kernel patches and getting them included in
> the stock kernel. This seems, uh, odd.
That's our policy. Every policy will have curious corner cases.
:
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's pretend that Debian actually has a significant amount of leverage
> on this sort of issue, and that vendors see their drivers appearing in
> contrib and want to do something about it. They /could/ open the
> firmware and provide a toolchain for i
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With drivers that load external firmware files this split is possible
> leaving the driver in main inside the kernel and the non DFSG free
> firmware in non-free.
This argument suggests that we can shift drivers from contrib to main
simply by turn
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This would make more sense if I sent it to the right list, really. Sorry
about that.
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
>> debian-legal. All other participants argue for non
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> (Please try to not Cc me on every reply. My messages even contain a
> Mail-Followup-To header.)
>
> On Dec 11, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > And why it should be different if that firmware is distributed by the
> > > manufacture
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le samedi 11 dÃcembre 2004 Ã 13:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a Ãcrit :
> > > Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
> > > DFSG-freeness of these firmwares is pretty clear.
> >
> > Then it doesn't go anywhere. It certainly
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know about no drivers which are useless without a non-free firmware,
> > while I know about a huge number of hardware devices which are useless
> > without a non-free firmware.
> So the drivers without the firmware are usefull (i.e.
(Please try to not Cc me on every reply. My messages even contain a
Mail-Followup-To header.)
On Dec 11, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And why it should be different if that firmware is distributed by the
> > manufacturer on a CD instead of a flash EPROM chip?
>
> Because in
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do not believe that this is obvious. I understand that FSF disagrees,
> > and considers firmwares to be just "data".
>
> Would you accept a patch for ppp of the form:
>
> char data[] = { 0x17, 0x23, 0x42, ...};
> ...
> *(int (*)(in
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 13:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> > Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
> > DFSG-freeness of these firmwares is pretty clear.
>
> Then it doesn't go anywhere. It certainly isn't for debian-devel.
Of course it is. This is about
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le samedi 11 dÃcembre 2004 Ã 13:45 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a Ãcrit :
> > Please continue your argument on debian-legal. NOT HERE.
>
> Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
> DFSG-freeness of these firmwares is pretty cl
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When the firmware is burned into the device, the user is prevented
> from modifying it in a rather more drastic and permanent fashion than
> when the restrictions are a matter of missing code or permissions.
Sure, but that's not the point. If someone p
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 13:45 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> Please continue your argument on debian-legal. NOT HERE.
Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
DFSG-freeness of these firmwares is pretty clear.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Think of it this way. For the card with the built-in firmware, the
> > > driver does not depend on any additional packages or software
> > > distribution to work. By contrast, for the card with the separate
> > >
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
