[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer

Thu Mar 24 12:22:44 CET 2011

On Thursday, 24 March 2011 12:48:22 Romain d'Alverny wrote:
+> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:39, Wolfgang Bornath <molch.b at googlemail.com> 
+wrote:
+> > But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents
+> > in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not
+> > care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We
+> > should rather stress the point.
+> > 
+> > We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we
+> > not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for
+> > non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free.
+> 
+> Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant
+> survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity
+> storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as
+> that those two media are available from the network without
+> discrimination.
+> 
+> So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as
+> the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the
+> user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea
+> about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a
+> different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition
+> too).
+
+The question is, why do we want to have a free distribution? What are suitable 
+guidelines?
+
+The users who want a Free distribution, would probably choose one that adheres 
+to the FSF free distribution guidelines:
+
+http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
+
+I think we already don't meet them, with or without a Free DVD, even if we 
+were to remove non-free firmware in the kernel, because we have non-free 
+repos.
+
+
+> 
+> And that would make the case for a consistent installing experience
+> that, no matter you're doing an exclusively ISO-based install or a
+> network-based install, you get through the same steps (with a
+> consistent opt-in or opt-out, clearly explained). It would only happen
+> that non-free media is available locally if asked for.
+> 
+> The alternative, if we're not to mix things on the static media, is to
+> have distinct ISOs: free and nonfree/tainted ones. Times the format:
+> DVD/CD/arch/USB through which we would have to decide to ease:
+> building, qa and distribution (we will have to choose a default one to
+> provide to visitors on the download page for instance).
+
+Is there a real benefit? Or, is usability more important? Or, do we want to 
+discuss with FSF the guidelines and whether it is possible for a distribution 
+project to both meet their guidelines (e.g., if user chooses X media, they 
+will never be prompted for non-free software, repositories etc.) and be useful 
+for real-world-users who can't always choose hardware based on open-ness 
+alone?
+
+Regards,
+Buchan
+