1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Non-free%20firmwares%20in%20installer&In-Reply-To=%3C201103241322.45309.bgmilne%40staff.telkomsa.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="003592.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="003625.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer</H1>
<B>Buchan Milne</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Non-free%20firmwares%20in%20installer&In-Reply-To=%3C201103241322.45309.bgmilne%40staff.telkomsa.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer">bgmilne at staff.telkomsa.net
</A><BR>
<I>Thu Mar 24 12:22:44 CET 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="003592.html">[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="003625.html">[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#3591">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#3591">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#3591">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#3591">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>On Thursday, 24 March 2011 12:48:22 Romain d'Alverny wrote:
><i> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:39, Wolfgang Bornath <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">molch.b at googlemail.com</A>>
</I>wrote:
><i> > But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents
</I>><i> > in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not
</I>><i> > care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We
</I>><i> > should rather stress the point.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we
</I>><i> > not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for
</I>><i> > non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant
</I>><i> survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity
</I>><i> storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as
</I>><i> that those two media are available from the network without
</I>><i> discrimination.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as
</I>><i> the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the
</I>><i> user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea
</I>><i> about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a
</I>><i> different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition
</I>><i> too).
</I>
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:
<A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html">http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html</A>
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.
><i>
</I>><i> And that would make the case for a consistent installing experience
</I>><i> that, no matter you're doing an exclusively ISO-based install or a
</I>><i> network-based install, you get through the same steps (with a
</I>><i> consistent opt-in or opt-out, clearly explained). It would only happen
</I>><i> that non-free media is available locally if asked for.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> The alternative, if we're not to mix things on the static media, is to
</I>><i> have distinct ISOs: free and nonfree/tainted ones. Times the format:
</I>><i> DVD/CD/arch/USB through which we would have to decide to ease:
</I>><i> building, qa and distribution (we will have to choose a default one to
</I>><i> provide to visitors on the download page for instance).
</I>
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
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="003592.html">[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="003625.html">[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#3591">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#3591">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#3591">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#3591">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
