DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
hi everyone,
the current situation concerning firmware blobs and dfsg-freeness is a
bit sad, among other things because there really isn't too much we can
do about it in the short run. so how about some practical proposal that
we can actually implement in a reasonable timeframe that gets us in a
better position to deal with this in the long run? my idea would be:
firmware blobs without source get put into non-free, firmware blobs with
source but without the necessary free tools to generate the image end up
in contrib, firmware which is cryptographically signed and can tehrefore
not be modified goes to non-free. we relax the "main" requirements
insofar that a package that depends on another package in non-free may
stay in main (and doesn't have to go to contrib), if the contents of
that other package are not executed or used on the main/host computer'c
cpu, but on some additional hardware. (this would of course need to be
phrased a bit better, but you get the idea).
this way everyone could still use their computer (if using contrib and
non-free), and not every other package will end up in contrib. main will
contain less non-free code than it does now, end non-free code is marked
as such...
cu robert
--
Robert Lemmen [url]http://www.semistable.com[/url]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJCY3HS6AOchRbaWYRAiMhAJ9nNFwRdhORnN/IeFHP13RF0fcE+QCeK1Bc
FpPi2xdr3zhrn1xuguY1GMM=
=Ag5s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 10:34 +0000, Robert Lemmen wrote:[color=blue]
> hi everyone,
>
> the current situation concerning firmware blobs and dfsg-freeness is a
> bit sad, among other things because there really isn't too much we can
> do about it in the short run. so how about some practical proposal that
> we can actually implement in a reasonable timeframe that gets us in a
> better position to deal with this in the long run? my idea would be:
>
> firmware blobs without source get put into non-free, firmware blobs with
> source but without the necessary free tools to generate the image end up
> in contrib, firmware which is cryptographically signed and can tehrefore
> not be modified goes to non-free. we relax the "main" requirements
> insofar that a package that depends on another package in non-free may
> stay in main (and doesn't have to go to contrib), if the contents of
> that other package are not executed or used on the main/host computer'c
> cpu, but on some additional hardware. (this would of course need to be
> phrased a bit better, but you get the idea).[/color]
Not possible, non-free is not enabled by default. Suggests/Recommends:
would be technically feasible though.
William
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBJCY0QoB+26npOQg4RApTpAJ0dONVMxbSdxtZ/HkVt57k27Qa2agCfaMLM
tQex1HHrijQXKLZB8D1uh6E=
=TT/a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:31:44AM -0500, William Pit**** wrote:[color=blue]
> Not possible, non-free is not enabled by default. Suggests/Recommends:
> would be technically feasible though.[/color]
true, perhaps we even need a special dependency type. but these are
implementation issues. isn't the general route (put firmware in
non-free, and make sure you can still use your system) what is most in
line with how we deal with these things in debian?
cu robert
--
Robert Lemmen [url]http://www.semistable.com[/url]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJCZJ/S6AOchRbaWYRAmWuAKCg2eOvfv9DRVjvnMTFnNZUdV42yACgr8Jl
8gse9eOfrUtzuoYfj9hslaM=
=ZE2n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008 à 10:34 +0000, Robert Lemmen a écrit :[color=blue]
> the current situation concerning firmware blobs and dfsg-freeness is a
> bit sad, among other things because there really isn't too much we can
> do about it in the short run.[/color]
Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. That would be much
more useful than useless babbling on mailing lists.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBJCZV8rSla4ddfhTMRAuSyAKChDT4TZ1KexeA4V7dI22xsq+u5wgCgrW40
SjAQ9jJlQQOl/aw+jWRJW40=
=OIgN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008 Ã* 12:07 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :[color=blue]
> Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. That would be much
> more useful than useless babbling on mailing lists.[/color]
Of course that’s Ben Hutchings. Sorry for mistaking you, Ben.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBJCZXKrSla4ddfhTMRAt9/AJ9ZnM3TJiPT4bpYkWJdn0WBoWD7XACfcKMs
uH6rxQ73XAJBxWzYit//KuI=
=Gv8S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:07:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:[color=blue]
> Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. That would be much
> more useful than useless babbling on mailing lists.[/color]
if you are talking about these [0], i certainly do not own any of these
pieces of hardware...
cu robert
[0] [url]http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/for-those-who-care-about-firmware[/url]
--
Robert Lemmen [url]http://www.semistable.com[/url]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJCZqOS6AOchRbaWYRAkPWAJ9mVYZFjUOU8qhnIXEphVMTwdPskACdE76a
mJjAejVhNNZ/4L3TfGH6DYc=
=4DrE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
[color=blue]
> Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008 Ã* 12:07 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :[color=green]
> > Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. That would be
> > much more useful than useless babbling on mailing lists.[/color]
>
> Of course that’s Ben Hutchings. Sorry for mistaking you, Ben.[/color]
Anyone is welcome to *also* test my packages, of course; but those
don't currently have much impact for the free vs. non-free divide :-)
--
\ “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must |
`\ not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.†|
_o__) —Albert Einstein |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:34:47AM +0000, Robert Lemmen wrote:[color=blue]
> we relax the "main" requirements insofar that a package that depends
> on another package in non-free may stay in main (and doesn't have to
> go to contrib).[/color]
For the sake of 10 binary firmwares, you want to make whole Debian
depend upon non-free ? Wow, what an achievement.
No, please, we don't accept regressions as a solution.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O [email]madcoder@debian.org[/email]
OOO [url]http://www.madism.org[/url]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAkkJxc0ACgkQvGr7W6HudhxMYgCfQQ/85q6Bipt9zYidDEHP6rht
6AUAnRvO+oDmWeRCMHM6H8Vy/zNRaj6T
=Rk/j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
Le Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:31:44AM -0500, William Pit**** a écrit :[color=blue]
>
> non-free is not enabled by default. Suggests/Recommends:
> would be technically feasible though.[/color]
… but Recommends would not be welcome, as "No unmet recommends" was a release
goal of Lenny.
[url]http://release.debian.org/lenny/goals.txt[/url]
This leaves "Suggests".
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:[color=blue]
> For the sake of 10 binary firmwares, you want to make whole Debian
> depend upon non-free ? Wow, what an achievement.[/color]
ok, i think i came across in a wrong way, because that is certainly not
what i want!
but look at it this way: if we have a package that contains totally
non-free firmware which is required to make it work, we basically have a
few choices:
1. the whole package has to go to non-free
2. the package is split up into a non-free part and one that goes in
main, which then cannot depend on the non-free one
3. the same, but with a dependency and the parts go to contrib and
non-free respectively
if i understand things correctly than option 2 is what we are trying to
do with the kernel in the moment (correct me if i am wrong), and the
only thing i am saying is that having a package A which will not work
(in some cases) without package B should declare some kind of
relationship on it. simply because there *is* a relation between them...
doesn't that sound reasonable to you?
cu robert
--
Robert Lemmen [url]http://www.semistable.com[/url]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJCdcsS6AOchRbaWYRAgJxAJ9n+2xH9dyCTLS+iJkdzUY+1qX3HQCfVyVb
Cu9FQ8r6Jpxe4sjfh4CGdLk=
=d7Zq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
ok, i think i have just woken up and must have mixed up a few unrelated
things in my previous mail(s). please disregard everything i said...
thanks robert
--
Robert Lemmen [url]http://www.semistable.com[/url]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJCdqCS6AOchRbaWYRAszEAJ97i+fHS18xmEJ46ntTnwvb8U//SgCgqALS
auw75/QCTa45Fai4ZnDbeLY=
=5jaX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
In article <20081030154756.GA13593@semistable.com> you wrote:[color=blue]
> doesn't that sound reasonable to you?[/color]
Yes maybe, but on the other hand, arent ppl used to the fact that the kernel
does not know about some available modules? Thats the whole idea of modules
(and plugins in other situations like media encoders).
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:47:56PM +0000, Robert Lemmen wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:[color=green]
> > For the sake of 10 binary firmwares, you want to make whole Debian
> > depend upon non-free ? Wow, what an achievement.[/color]
>
> ok, i think i came across in a wrong way, because that is certainly not
> what i want!
>
> but look at it this way: if we have a package that contains totally
> non-free firmware which is required to make it work, we basically have a
> few choices:
>
> 1. the whole package has to go to non-free
> 2. the package is split up into a non-free part and one that goes in
> main, which then cannot depend on the non-free one
> 3. the same, but with a dependency and the parts go to contrib and
> non-free respectively[/color]
no that's not how it will work. The split will be (and that's the sole
*reasonnable* way to do it) to put firmwares away, it *different* source
packages in non-free. The kernel will have patches to load those
firmwares on demand (and fail if they're not here). This is what Ben
did, and what needs testing. The kernel doesn't need to depend on the
firmwares at _all_.
All other options are silly and should not even be mentioned, unless the
expected reactions to it are nervous laughs.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O [email]madcoder@debian.org[/email]
OOO [url]http://www.madism.org[/url]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAkkJ660ACgkQvGr7W6HudhzTbwCeLCe9f4v3kXQvqKExkRbjX1PP
cwYAn2A637TsUbGUCdl++XqWzk3Bw43Q
=gHzD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:47:56PM +0000, Robert Lemmen wrote:[color=blue]
> if i understand things correctly than option 2 is what we are trying to
> do with the kernel in the moment (correct me if i am wrong), and the
> only thing i am saying is that having a package A which will not work
> (in some cases) without package B should declare some kind of
> relationship on it. simply because there *is* a relation between them...[/color]
That "sort of relationship" between a package A that possibly (i.e. "in
some cases") might use a package B is AFAIK called "suggests" which
would be just fine: it declares a relationship and it is allowed to
declare it between packages in main and non-free.
Hauke
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAkkJ8yYACgkQGOp6XeD8cQ37jgDeJrxni5yC8X5r2kX5/4X71HI4
oTOWbQKzN3nV5wDaA1E9CmUGcxzbuFUSIph2UXBV5yWQXFICIb2oVg==
=Ku4n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:[color=blue]
> For the sake of 10 binary firmwares, you want to make whole Debian
> depend upon non-free ? Wow, what an achievement.
>
> No, please, we don't accept regressions as a solution.[/color]
So if any of the hardware that requires non-free firmware to operate and
currently works in etch was to not work with Lenny, then that's
completely unacceptable?
If that's the case, then there is no way EVER to make Debian comply with
the DFSG since you aren't going to get free firmware for all those
devices.
Maintaining support for most of that hardware through the use of
non-free can be done. Maintaining support for all that hardware through
only main is imposible and unrealistic. So a demand of no regressions
is just insane. Debian shouldn't ever have worked with that hardware in
the first place in the case of main only installs.
--
Len SOrensen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:34:47AM +0000, Robert Lemmen wrote:[color=blue]
> hi everyone,
>
> the current situation concerning firmware blobs and dfsg-freeness is a
> bit sad, among other things because there really isn't too much we can
> do about it in the short run. so how about some practical proposal that
> we can actually implement in a reasonable timeframe that gets us in a
> better position to deal with this in the long run? my idea would be:
>
> firmware blobs without source get put into non-free, firmware blobs with
> source but without the necessary free tools to generate the image end up
> in contrib, firmware which is cryptographically signed and can tehrefore
> not be modified goes to non-free. we relax the "main" requirements
> insofar that a package that depends on another package in non-free may
> stay in main (and doesn't have to go to contrib), if the contents of
> that other package are not executed or used on the main/host computer'c
> cpu, but on some additional hardware. (this would of course need to be
> phrased a bit better, but you get the idea).
>[/color]
This look complicated. Everyone agrees that firmwares are a bit special
in the world of software due to the fact they don't run on the host CPU.
Some persons want to have them in main, others in non-free and others in
contrib, with some intermediate opinions.
What about creating a firmware section that have different rules than
the current main, contrib and non-free? This way ones who want a 100%
free "software" distribution have the possibility to use only main,
and ones who want to use firmwares do not need to add non-free to their
sources.list and installing non-free "software" by mistake.
This does not solve the problem of debian-installer though.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' [email]aurel32@debian.org[/email] | [email]aurelien@aurel32.net[/email]
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | [url]www.aurel32.net[/url]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 14:51 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:[color=blue]
> Everyone agrees that firmwares are a bit special
> in the world of software due to the fact they don't run on the host
> CPU.[/color]
I don't think they are at all special. What interprets the software - be
it a 'cpu', a 'vm' or a co-processor like many video cards, or something
like an arduino doesn't alter the basic attributes - there is machine
code for one or more machines, which is usually derived from some more
editable source (more can be quite a range though) though compilation.
If firmware is special, so is java, .net, ocaml, all 32-bit i386
binaries (because bochs can emulate them elsewhere) etc.
-Rob
--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBJDhWThnv5qfvT644RAgUoAJ9w4VfvZedjRGyJ1hZIqaOl1BjdTwCfWElQ
ljpv86RD5jlYHuUZDI1xpr4=
=5TGy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:03:15AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 14:51 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:[color=green]
> > Everyone agrees that firmwares are a bit special
> > in the world of software due to the fact they don't run on the host
> > CPU.[/color]
>
> I don't think they are at all special. What interprets the software - be
> it a 'cpu', a 'vm' or a co-processor like many video cards, or something
> like an arduino doesn't alter the basic attributes - there is machine
> code for one or more machines, which is usually derived from some more
> editable source (more can be quite a range though) though compilation.
>
> If firmware is special, so is java, .net, ocaml, all 32-bit i386
> binaries (because bochs can emulate them elsewhere) etc.
>[/color]
Bull****. Even if all those stuff are interpreted, they finally runs on
the host CPU.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' [email]aurel32@debian.org[/email] | [email]aurelien@aurel32.net[/email]
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | [url]www.aurel32.net[/url]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:
[color=blue]
> This look complicated. Everyone agrees that firmwares are a bit
> special in the world of software due to the fact they don't run on
> the host CPU.[/color]
I disagree.
That makes them special, but it doesn't at all affect the rules that
should be applied to determine whether they are free.
Anything which we propose to distribute as part of Debian must follow
the DFSG rules; otherwise, we violate our promises in the Social
Contract. There's nothing special about the *vendor-intended use* of a
collection of bits that exempts it from the standard that we apply to
the rest of the operating system.
--
\ “A ‘No’ uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater |
`\ than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to |
_o__) avoid trouble.†—Mahatma Gandhi |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]
Re: DFSG violations / buyers guide.
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 11:29 +0000, Robert Lemmen wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:07:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:[color=green]
> > Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. That would be much
> > more useful than useless babbling on mailing lists.[/color]
>
> if you are talking about these [0], i certainly do not own any of these
> pieces of hardware...[/color]
I would be very pleased to have a "Buyers guide" on the wiki (i.e list
devices that are current, supported and dfsg-free).
I would push to make such page in no more than "2 clicks" from the
frontpage.
Franklin
--
/me wonders how many laptops are 100% free.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]
