4 ms·

The unmentioned context here is that Debian is stricter in how they handle binary firmware than most distributions. I believe they refuse to distribute any not

The unmentioned context here is that Debian is stricter in how they handle binary firmware than most distributions. I believe they refuse to distribute any not under a free software license, most others will ship binary blob firmware.

CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
That's not completely true. Debian does allow what they call "non-free" software, with limitations (see [1]). In particular, searching for Debian packages with "firmware" in the name[2] will show alot of non-free. This does cause consternation in at least some free-software groups[3]. [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the-non-free-archive-area https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the... [2]: https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=all&arch=any&searchon=names&keywords=firmware https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=all&arch=any&search... [3]: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
blihp 8y ago
Yes, Debian is stricter in how they handle everything, including binary blobs. No, they do not refuse to distribute 'any not under a free software license' (there are contrib and non-free repos which allow for this) Where other distros often say 'whatever, we'll include it', Debian acts as a very useful canary when things like this occur. I don't agree that it's unmentioned context: Debian is currently distributing prior releases of the firmware, Intel released new firmware and changed something in the terms, and the Debian packagers have a problem with the new terms. If anything the unmentioned context is that all too often distros/people just blindly accept changes in license terms where the Debian packagers actually read and evaluate license terms and don't just rubber stamp them. It's useful to everyone that someone is paying attention, even if one disagrees with the Debian position on a given issue.

CaliforniaKarl 8y ago

That's not completely true. Debian does allow what they call "non-free" software, with limitations (see [1]). In particular, searching for Debian packages with "firmware" in the name[2] will show alot of non-free. This does cause consternation in at least some free-software groups[3]. [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the-non-free-archive-area https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the... [2]: https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=all&arch=any&searchon=names&keywords=firmware https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=all&arch=any&search... [3]: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html

blihp 8y ago

Yes, Debian is stricter in how they handle everything, including binary blobs. No, they do not refuse to distribute 'any not under a free software license' (there are contrib and non-free repos which allow for this) Where other distros often say 'whatever, we'll include it', Debian acts as a very useful canary when things like this occur. I don't agree that it's unmentioned context: Debian is currently distributing prior releases of the firmware, Intel released new firmware and changed something in the terms, and the Debian packagers have a problem with the new terms. If anything the unmentioned context is that all too often distros/people just blindly accept changes in license terms where the Debian packagers actually read and evaluate license terms and don't just rubber stamp them. It's useful to everyone that someone is paying attention, even if one disagrees with the Debian position on a given issue.