DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices

On Nov 08, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
[color=blue]
> So while I am personally of the DFSG only makes sense for executable
> *software* that runs on the host CPU, previous GR's have shown that
> this position has a distinct minority. So why not let the DFSG
> hard-liners win this one completely? The current kernel team, if they[/color]
I agree. While I have always opposed the "editorial changes" and the
removal of firmwares from Debian, if the DFSG-revisionists won I can't
see why the DFSG should be selectively enforced.
Either we create (i.e. vote) a document defining which parts of the DFSG
can be ignored for an indefinite time or the release managers and
ftpmasters should apply it as usual every time a violation is reported
and confirmed.

Myself, I'd like a Debian fork with RHEL kernels anyway...

--
ciao,
Marco

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkXnGQACgkQFGfw2OHuP7GGsgCgi9gMxbqeld8E6qxXB/2S3lJo
yCEAn1dq3ShHIqfYk7/MlxJzDUHOXCcs
=LsDh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 à 03:28 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :[color=blue]
> Myself, I'd like a Debian fork with RHEL kernels anyway...[/color]

lol

--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.


--
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]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Palfrader wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Fortunately for us, at the
>> moment I am not aware of large numbers of highly popular laptops or
>> servers for which non-free firmware is necessary before the firmware
>> would be able to access the network.[/color]
>
> HP DL360 G5:
> firmware-bnx2
> (Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme II BCM5708 Gigabit Ethernet)
>
> Yes, I was really thrilled when I found out we can't install lenny in
> any sane way on debian.org hardware.[/color]

That really sums it up nicely for me...

Since a kernel containing sourceless firmware won't be shiped with debian
and won't be called a debian kernel, to me it seems obvious that a
computer running such firmware can not be called a computer runing the
debian OS.

I think debian should not lie to it's users and should amend the first
sentence on [url]www.debian.org[/url] accordingly:
[color=blue]
> Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer.[/color]

....provided you don't want to use wireless or some other hardware that
requires sourceless firmware [footnote/link to a list].

With the hence large list of exceptions it will be misleading to say
"debian is a free OS for _your_ computer".

Debian should also admit at a prominent position of the web sites and the
release notes that their own servers won't run debian and that most
likely few of their developers run debian on a computer that has a
working wireless or a working gsm etc. (The options for wireless are
summarized in [1]. I'd really like to know the fraction of DDs who will
run plain debian and do without sourceless stuff on all their computers,
but I guess it will become increasingly and embarrassingly small...)

The lengths of the various threads are an indication that there is no
simple way out of this dilemma.

In my personal opinion it would be better to amend the social contract
instead of moving in the direction that debian (purely) won't run on a
large fraction of current hardware.

Yes, I'd love to only have firmware (and bioses) with sources, but since
this seems unrealistic for the foreseeable future, as a user I'd prefer
to have support for firmware _inside_ debian instead of _outside_ of it
(in non-free, and opening a whole bunch of other non-free along with it).
It will leave me in an awkward position, if the firmware that controls my
network connectivity will _not_ be supported by the OS, at least at the
level that (security) updates of the firmware will be added to releases
and point releases.

Along the promise of free software, the social contract also promises
that the projects priorities are it's users. I think that the tremendous
success of ubuntu is mainly based on their better priorities for the
users, while debian's impression of focussing on the interests of their
own developers promotes users away from debian. There are much to many
professionals who use debian on 100% of their servers, but admit of using
ubuntu on their home computers.

I think the best way out of this dilemma is to add a 'non-free firmware'
section and make this section part of official debian. A provision is
that the firmware is not run on the main processor. A distinction between
sourceless firmware loaded by the OS (turning it non-debian) and that
present by other means (in agreement with the SC) is pointless. In fact,
it is often better to have firmware loaded by the OS compared to have
firmware 'hard wired' to the chip, since the latter case makes upgrades
much more cumbersome for the user. By sticking to the social contract in
the present form, debian pushes hardware vendors in the opposite
direction (firmware on the chip) and thus will make it more difficult for
their users.

Of course that's all only my humble opinion.

[Disclaimer: I am not a DD. ]

Cheers,
Johannes

[1] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_wireless_drivers[/url]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - [url]http://enigmail.mozdev.org[/url]

iEYEARECAAYFAkkX9owACgkQC1NzPRl9qEVBNwCfZULiVU4eEBO2kvVk7z4418oz
Q3cAnRaX9bVeRppO+G16SMXhNO8OoHDq
=ogFL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
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]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:56:26PM +1030, Karl Goetz wrote:[color=blue]
> Why are they making hardware that can transmit on *any* frequency? Why
> are they not making hardware that transmits in the 2.4GHz ISM band
> perhaps with firmware to 'fine tune' it? Seems strange to pour lots of
> money into making an all-band radio then locking it to a 500MHz band.[/color]

As you seem to know about the physics, please provide the specs for a
proper hardware-based bandpass-filter for the 2.4GHz ISM band, so you
can't leaf this band without hardware modification.

Sure, the hardware limits it already, the antenna and sender produce a
ressonance circuit. But this can include a bandwidth of several GHz.

Bastian

--
Vulcans do not approve of violence.
-- Spock, "Journey to Babel", stardate 3842.4


--
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]

Am 2008-11-08 15:29:44, schrieb Thomas Bushnell BSG:[color=blue]
> It seems to me that, if this is really true, then the hardware
> manufacturers have been lying to the FCC for years, claiming that the
> user cannot reprogram the card, without explaining that, in fact, it's
> just that users may not know how to, but that they can do so without any
> hardware mucking.[/color]

Not realy since in Europe a WiFi Card has for exanlep only 100mW (which
allow an operativ-radius of arround 300m) while in Australia and the USA
it can have 400mW and you can reach your AT on over 3 miles...

My 68 AP's "Proxim Tsunami MP.11a" run with 800mW in Strasbourg/France
and Kehl/Germany, BUT, you need a commercial License for it. And of
course, you CAN harm others if not correct implemented and tested.

Exactly the same WiFi Chip is used on Consumer WiFi cards...

Now load the firmware from the Proxim Tsunami MP.11a into your PCMCIA or
ExpressCard...

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, [url]http://counter.li.org/[/url]
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJGIg7C0FPBMSS+BIRAvKRAKCEQHnVqO+qASJu2H36Wj1UvYk1OwCbB2ay
yw4FX5wa7Zi+gFPD33SyV94=
=2U4s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Am 2008-11-09 12:19:06, schrieb Josselin Mouette:[color=blue]
> Why in the world would we do that when we have all that???s needed to
> simply move the firmware images to non-free?[/color]

And what, if peoples do not want to use non-free but get there hardware
working?

The best would be to create a new flavour called "firmware" which IS
non-free but seperated from the flavour "non-free".

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, [url]http://counter.li.org/[/url]
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJGJC2C0FPBMSS+BIRAl/nAJ9HMt8HUOJFJV2mLHp0UF3zdnekhACePR0E
eEFeRBSvC3wGcJhgMt6Rfow=
=oQWG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Am 2008-11-10 09:54:24, schrieb Johannes Wiedersich:[color=blue]
> I think the best way out of this dilemma is to add a 'non-free firmware'
> section and make this section part of official debian. A provision is[/color]

But this should be a "volatile" archive, which allow the upload of new
firmware releases and not let the users stuck with old outdated firmware

Note: On any of my computers I have "contrib"
and "non-free" NOT configured.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, [url]http://counter.li.org/[/url]
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJGJOOC0FPBMSS+BIRAjsYAKCabxn5rTKQdKLEvpuooolmjCUslwCfeX+p
pWZRkJEUjqQum5WinXm7KCQ=
=Q+u5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Am 2008-11-10 12:56:26, schrieb Karl Goetz:[color=blue]
> Why are they making hardware that can transmit on *any* frequency? Why
> are they not making hardware that transmits in the 2.4GHz ISM band
> perhaps with firmware to 'fine tune' it? Seems strange to pour lots of
> money into making an all-band radio then locking it to a 500MHz band.[/color]

Because the differnt LAWs in the world?

The WiFi chip must support 2.1-2.8 GHz where the UPPER/LOWER frequencies
are disallowed in 90% of the world...

Making 3 differnt WiFi chips would let the cost explode...

And of course, some of the Consumer Chips exist in Industrial/Military
grade... There is NO need to develop TWO different chips, it is only
about quality testing likefor Solar-Cells. The A-Ware goes into the
space tecnology, the B-Ware is for industrial use and the C-Ware for
standard Solar-Power Plants and Consumers...

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, [url]http://counter.li.org/[/url]
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJGJVFC0FPBMSS+BIRAr/hAKC1PN1q4b3QXB4Pqh9BAEAtkBIRmwCeKuPV
V6eeOSgacDkxfm8SzuNj8rU=
=RxPa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:[color=blue]
> Another consequence of making it easy for the users to add non-free to
> the repositories so they can download firmware necessary to make their
> hardware useful is that a huge number of users may end up enabling
> non-free just to make their hardware work, and then they may end up
> installing even more non-free packages on their system.[/color]

This is actually true for me. I would like to keep away non-free
software from my system, but I also want to receive updates for the
package firmware-iwlwifi, so I have to add the non-free section. For
me firmware is just something different and it might be a good thing
to have a seperate section for that.


--
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]

On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:[color=blue]
> So realistically, let's be honest with ourselves. Not supporting
> devices that require non-free firmwares is not going to help make the
> world a better place. What it will probably do is that users, once
> they find out that that a Debian install will result in various bits
> and pieces of their hardware being non-functional until they figure
> out how to download various magic firmware components, or manually
> configuring the non-free repository, will probably simply switch to
> another distribution, such as Fedora or Ubuntu. At which point there
> will be even *fewer* Debian users, and so Debian will have even *less*
> leverage.[/color]

I completely agree with the contents of your email, and I would like to
express this here: while I believe Debian must remain committed to
software freedom, we also need to be realistic, and understand that we
must draw a line somewhere. We need to get the word out that we are not
happy with this situation, and push for change, but we need to be
careful not to make Debian lose its relevance.

Notice that I'm not saying that we should make non-free a part of Debian
and stop caring about the DSFG, mind you. I am an advocate of removing
non-free and contrib from Debian servers, actually.

See you,

--
Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>
Debian Project

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAABAgAGBQJJGZUBAAoJENIA6zCg+12mUsMH/1yr77f8Ux9RVk5j5BA50kYd
oJUJ1kv8xSHfnyfWvEUN3x+O7ZbNOudbewCPIJDAx4DXNbZi0y/bO7mrSJAA6GNF
WhyoHGYP1Q/4UoANROKNrACuZMZ0yK4CmpXwjNfDWFnsPYNr23YSvcXsp4z9TKdV
5CeXrhGC0n79HldG10pTefvvI7jA/sKBDpgZUXK3BvD7xd/d0yqYDqPq1NCM+Qfv
xDEhkcMQhQMKgjbe+k+s8v2zHjs12jyaVeSQbskDlg6PNv7/zi3a4UnvwGfKbAOW
tuaUpawG8I+W3Gbo6/5Oj1pMtXowHskiB6IOD2tDqMjoNy2dyHcLyXPYDz5wjOg=
=psgr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----