3 ms·

Well said. > Is getting an updated closed-source firmware from Debian worse than using whatever closed-source firmware was shipped with the device? I think s

Well said. > Is getting an updated closed-source firmware from Debian worse than using whatever closed-source firmware was shipped with the device? I think so because doesn't the full Debian distro have the source of all packages--it's "open", but also literally "open source". This is what makes it universal as it is said on their website. You have access to all the source code for every single package, so you can do anything you want with the whole gigantic system, including trying to get it running on other CPUs or building other OSes (Ubuntu, etc.) on it. Debian ultimately is meant to give you power through software freedom. Shipping closed source blobs conflicts with that value. Other OSes may have different values, and that's fine. There's room for everybody.

geofft 6y ago
Sure, but ... you are not getting any less source code this way. The proposal is to make just as much source code available to you, either way. You are also not running any less non-free firmware on your system this way. Debian is not able to give you source for that component, regardless of whether it gives you the binary. What is the effect of not giving you the binary? "Sending people non-free binaries conflicts with our values" is a reasonable answer and one I respect. I'm just pushing back on the idea that the end user's freedom - the ability of the end user to control or customize what happens on their system - is any way changed by whether Debian offers them non-free firmware or not. And in the case where the user cannot use the hardware at all (the case where there isn't firmware flashed onto the device from the factory), I think that under any reasonable definition of "freedom," being unable to use the device at all is the least possible freedom over that part of the system! (The values argument also explains why Debian doesn't want to just ship the firmware on the installation media but keep it disabled until a user checks a box - the problem is not that it makes it too easy to choose to use the non-free firmware and we ought to dissuade the user from doing so, the problem is that Debian ought not to automatically send people non-free things in the first place.)

geofft 6y ago

Sure, but ... you are not getting any less source code this way. The proposal is to make just as much source code available to you, either way. You are also not running any less non-free firmware on your system this way. Debian is not able to give you source for that component, regardless of whether it gives you the binary. What is the effect of not giving you the binary? "Sending people non-free binaries conflicts with our values" is a reasonable answer and one I respect. I'm just pushing back on the idea that the end user's freedom - the ability of the end user to control or customize what happens on their system - is any way changed by whether Debian offers them non-free firmware or not. And in the case where the user cannot use the hardware at all (the case where there isn't firmware flashed onto the device from the factory), I think that under any reasonable definition of "freedom," being unable to use the device at all is the least possible freedom over that part of the system! (The values argument also explains why Debian doesn't want to just ship the firmware on the installation media but keep it disabled until a user checks a box - the problem is not that it makes it too easy to choose to use the non-free firmware and we ought to dissuade the user from doing so, the problem is that Debian ought not to automatically send people non-free things in the first place.)