4 ms·

> On the other hand who cares? Free Software does not need to grow Sure, there's no VC breathing down the neck of Debian, but arguably the purpose of free soft

by jabl 5y ago

> On the other hand who cares? Free Software does not need to grow Sure, there's no VC breathing down the neck of Debian, but arguably the purpose of free software is to provide software freedom for users. If people aren't able to use that free software, it's a bit pointless. Further, a (small) fraction of users grow into developers creating more free software. To the extent non-free firmware allows more people to use free software, I don't think it's clear at all that a puritan approach to firmware is a net win for software freedom.

bruce511 5y ago
The purpose is to provide free software _for those who want it_. If the goal is to create converts then a puritanical approach is a poor approach, IMO. Personally I've never seen the FSF approach as being "conversional" - rather it acts as a purity touchstone. Debian needs to articulate its specific goals to the author, there are many paths they can take, but unless the goals are clearly articulated its hard to see what the right path is. Note that some goals which we take for granted (everything should be free, get folk to switch) are not necessarily compatible. I think that is the root of this discussion.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I don't think Debian needs "converts". This isn't a religious revival movement. There are many Debian derivatives that aren't as arsey as Debian about non-free blobs; if that's what people want, then they should "convert" to one of those derivatives, rather than raw Debian.
  - jabl 5y ago
    One could just as well claim that if Debian decides to include non-free firmware on the official install images, those that are deeply offended about that can sod off and create some derivative distro with the dirty bits removed. It's not written in stone that Debian has to be the purest distro of them all.
    - scbrg 5y ago
      > It's not written in stone that Debian has to be the purest distro of them all. Perhaps not purest, and perhaps not in stone, but in the closest thing to a digital equivalent it's at least written that Debian has to be pure. The very first bullet of Debian's Social contract is: "Debian will remain 100% free". You could argue that when that changes, it stops being Debian. https://www.debian.org/social_contract https://www.debian.org/social_contract
      - jabl 5y ago
        Well, Debian the OS, yes. But where do you draw the line? Debian still allows your web browser to execute non-free Javascript that you download from some shady site on the internet. ;) Anyway, for FW one can certainly argue it's not part of the OS, as it's executing in some auxiliary core on the device rather than being part of the OS itself executing on the main CPU's. And further, if that same non-free FW would be stored in ROM or on flash, Debian has no problems with it as long as open source drivers are present in the kernel. So the only problem here is devices that want the driver to provide the FW blob to them upon initialization instead of the FW blob being persistently stored on the device. Not really any meaningful difference from a software freedom perspective either way.

by jabl 5y ago

bruce511 5y ago

The purpose is to provide free software _for those who want it_. If the goal is to create converts then a puritanical approach is a poor approach, IMO. Personally I've never seen the FSF approach as being "conversional" - rather it acts as a purity touchstone. Debian needs to articulate its specific goals to the author, there are many paths they can take, but unless the goals are clearly articulated its hard to see what the right path is. Note that some goals which we take for granted (everything should be free, get folk to switch) are not necessarily compatible. I think that is the root of this discussion.

denton-scratch 5y ago
I don't think Debian needs "converts". This isn't a religious revival movement. There are many Debian derivatives that aren't as arsey as Debian about non-free blobs; if that's what people want, then they should "convert" to one of those derivatives, rather than raw Debian.
- jabl 5y ago
  One could just as well claim that if Debian decides to include non-free firmware on the official install images, those that are deeply offended about that can sod off and create some derivative distro with the dirty bits removed. It's not written in stone that Debian has to be the purest distro of them all.
  - scbrg 5y ago
    > It's not written in stone that Debian has to be the purest distro of them all. Perhaps not purest, and perhaps not in stone, but in the closest thing to a digital equivalent it's at least written that Debian has to be pure. The very first bullet of Debian's Social contract is: "Debian will remain 100% free". You could argue that when that changes, it stops being Debian. https://www.debian.org/social_contract https://www.debian.org/social_contract
    - jabl 5y ago
      Well, Debian the OS, yes. But where do you draw the line? Debian still allows your web browser to execute non-free Javascript that you download from some shady site on the internet. ;) Anyway, for FW one can certainly argue it's not part of the OS, as it's executing in some auxiliary core on the device rather than being part of the OS itself executing on the main CPU's. And further, if that same non-free FW would be stored in ROM or on flash, Debian has no problems with it as long as open source drivers are present in the kernel. So the only problem here is devices that want the driver to provide the FW blob to them upon initialization instead of the FW blob being persistently stored on the device. Not really any meaningful difference from a software freedom perspective either way.