u-Ray images, a live image per major
desktop environment (for some value of "major"), various paths through the
installer, amd64/i386, UEFI/BIOS, non-firmware/firmware and so on. Not
producing separate firmware and non-firmware images is one way to speed
this up by making the critical p
Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):
>> I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking
>> because of the concern that the latter option may have been ruled invalid
>> by the P
Steve McIntyre writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
> >easy for those who want to provide an unofficial full
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx writes ("General Resolution: non-free
>firmware: results"):
>> The results of the General Resolution about non-free firmware:
>> Option 5 "Change SC for no
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):
> I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking
> because of the concern that the latter option may have been ruled invalid
> by the Project Secretary. I prefer one inst
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>> Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
>> easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
>> to do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official
>> page, inverting the way we
Ian Jackson writes:
> Observe also that "Recommend installer containing non-free firmware"
> beat "Only one installer" by 12 votes.
I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking
because of the concern that the latter option may have been ru
Ian Jackson left as an exercise for the reader:
> 6 votes is a very tight margin between "one installer" and "two
> installers".
for anyone not doing the work of producing and staging two
installers, there was little real difference between these two
options (less potential confusion was the
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
> easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
> to do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official
> page, inverting
Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx writes ("General Resolution: non-free
firmware: results"):
> The results of the General Resolution about non-free firmware:
> Option 5 "Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer"
>
> The details of the r
Hi,
The results of the General Resolution about non-free firmware:
Option 5 "Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer"
The details of the results are available at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003
Kurt Roeckx
Debian Project Secretary
signature.asc
D
,
Devotee (on behalf of Debian Project Secretary)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Starting results calculation at Sun Oct 2 06:33:53 2022
Option 1 "Only one installer, including non-free firmware"
Option 2 "Recommend installer containing non-free firmware"
Option 3 &
Hi,
This is the first call for votes for the General Resolution about
non-free firmware.
Voting period starts 2022-09-18 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-10-01 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 04:50:41PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> Seconded. Thanks, Russ!
The signature check failed, and the discussion period is over.
Kurt
e Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
> identical to the current version in all respects except that it adds the
> following sentence to the end of point 5:
>
> The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not
> part of the Debian
this vote, however,
>> > is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than providing a 100% free
>> > Debian (guided by the DSC/DFSG) and using that as a tactic to change the
>> > world, Debian will (under A/E) provide a 99% free Debian.
>>
>> Stretching that met
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:54:01PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
> > harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
> > ever comes to
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
> harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
> ever comes to it".
>
> Or even "I've seen this in other licenses, can't hurt, let's
> > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > > > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware
> > > > > stored in
> > > > > your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS
Hi Everyone
On 2022/09/07 18:26, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
As per the Debian Constitution[1] (4.2¶3), I'm requesting an extension
for the discussion period of 7 days.
Thank you all for taking the time to polish or add voting options over
the last week. I believe that the options
anging tactics: rather than providing a 100% free
> > Debian (guided by the DSC/DFSG) and using that as a tactic to change the
> > world, Debian will (under A/E) provide a 99% free Debian.
>
> Stretching that metaphor a little: making non-free firmware available
> in th
taphor a little: making non-free firmware available
in the installer strikes me as equivalent to offering Wellington boots
to new arrivals at the beach, so that they can wade across the muddy
patch to get to the nice dry, sandy bit of beach where we play barefoot.
Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands
erception is that Debian is another
> lighthouse here, and that this is fine. Debians' DFSG and the rejection
> of GFDL Invariant sections are ridiculed elsewhere much the same way the
> FSF's positions on non-free firmware is ridiculed here. I happen to
> like these lighthouse properties of
> > > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored
> > > > in
> > > > your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
> > >
> > > My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are muc
nd have _different_ red lines
>> for what they consider unacceptable.
>>
>> To illustrate, Debian does not consider a work under the GFDL with an
>> invariant section to be free, and (as far as I understand) would not
>> permit them in main or in the Debian ins
not consider a work under the GFDL with an
> invariant section to be free, and (as far as I understand) would not
> permit them in main or in the Debian installer. Disallowing
> modifications is quite similar to the terms for some non-free firmware.
>
> It is easy to criticize the FSF but
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-fr
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> > your hardware is better than having it loaded from y
Le Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:29:07AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> I believe the Debian project is permitted to publish non-free installers
> under the current DSC/DFSG (which it actually is doing today; just
> hidden), but according to the DSC it is not part of the
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
more fav
>provide Linux drivers (because Linux is the dominant server OS),
> >since it is not tenable to provide only non-free drivers (because
> >entreprise distros do not ship them), the move is toward smaller and
> >smaller drivers loading larger and larger non-free firmware.
> >
fferent_ compromises, and have _different_ red lines
for what they consider unacceptable.
To illustrate, Debian does not consider a work under the GFDL with an
invariant section to be free, and (as far as I understand) would not
permit them in main or in the Debian installer. Disallowing
modificat
Tobias Frost writes:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free
>> system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so.
>>
>> For example,
On 12/09/22 at 12:08 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
> > To me, the FSF's attempts to produce an operating system lead to the
> > range of GNU/Linux distributions that came about during that time, which
> > we all still use.
>
> Right, I think both things are true.
>
> I
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free
> system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so.
>
> For example, I install the firmware-iwlwifi package on my laptop
ee
> drivers. Now, since in a lot of situation it is not tenable not to
> provide Linux drivers (because Linux is the dominant server OS),
> since it is not tenable to provide only non-free drivers (because
> entreprise distros do not ship them), the move is toward smaller an
gt;
>> Does choosing only hardware with preinstalled non-free software
>> (instead of partially OS-supplied non-free firmware) make the non-free
>> software more free?
>
> I don't believe so, no.
>
>>> What it seems this vote is about is to go back to the time where
mean hardware that comes with already
> preinstalled non-free software?
Yes, or (preferrably) hardware that does not come with non-free software
at all.
> Does choosing only hardware with preinstalled non-free software
> (instead of partially OS-supplied non-free firmware) make the non-
Richard Laager writes:
> I agree insofar as: E > B > C > NOTA > D
> I put A in a different spot: A > B > C. You have B > C > A.
> E is A plus the SC modification. With E as your first choice, why
> wouldn't you put A > B?
I'm concerned about the potential complications of a conflict with the
In reading your messages, I think I have the same position as you, but
I'm confused by our different tentative rankings.
On 9/12/22 15:13, Russ Allbery wrote:
For full disclosure, my vote is likely E>B>C>A>NOTA>D.)
I agree insofar as: E > B > C > NOTA > D
I put A in a different spot: A > B
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 01:13:33PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> Wonderful -- it is good that I am able to finally express your view in a
>> way that you actually agree with.
>
>Yes, thank you very much for your thoughtful and productive engagement in
>this thread!
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:18:13PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Russ Allbery writes:
...
>Okay. But given a situation when someone comes to you with a hardware
>component that requires non-free software to work, and asks you to
>install Debian on it, would you resolve that by
>
> 1)
against lack of Linux drivers, then against the lack of free
>drivers. Now, since in a lot of situation it is not tenable not to
>provide Linux drivers (because Linux is the dominant server OS),
>since it is not tenable to provide only non-free drivers (because
>entreprise distros do not s
to
provide Linux drivers (because Linux is the dominant server OS),
since it is not tenable to provide only non-free drivers (because
entreprise distros do not ship them), the move is toward smaller and
smaller drivers loading larger and larger non-free firmware.
Debian should not trick users into downlo
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Wonderful -- it is good that I am able to finally express your view in a
> way that you actually agree with.
Yes, thank you very much for your thoughtful and productive engagement in
this thread! It's really satisfying to be able to talk about things that
provoke
Thanks for long post, thoughtful and I only have a reflection left:
>> Okay. But given a situation when someone comes to you with a hardware
>> component that requires non-free software to work, and asks you to
>> install Debian on it, would you resolve that by
>
>>1) install the free Debian
stalled non-free software?
Does choosing only hardware with preinstalled non-free software
(instead of partially OS-supplied non-free firmware) make the non-free
software more free?
> What it seems this vote is about is to go back to the time where a
> non-free work is required before you can
truly don't understand. It
seems like you think that because the installer has the *option* of
installing non-free firmware, it is somehow fatally compromised from a
free software perspective, and that position doesn't make sense to me.
Debian has always had the option of installing non-free softwar
ian and include in -- and invite to -- the community help and
> resources to solve the situation with non-free works as much as Debian
> is able to do within the restriction of a 100% free Debian, to meet
> people where they are and to make their system as free as possible.
Yup, I think all those t
Russ Allbery writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> I recall that it took ~5 years until hardware (usually audio, video,
>> network cards) was well supported with stable releases of free software
>> distributions in the 1990's. Often it was never possible to get some
>> hardware to work with
Russ Allbery writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> Thanks -- this helps me understand the two principles at play here:
>
>> 1) having a free Debian
>
>> 2) having a Debian that works on as much hardware as possible
>
> This summary is moving in the right direction! But your phrasing of 2)
>
On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 at 19:20:29 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Steve McIntyre writes:
> > Many common laptops in the last 5-10 years don't come with wired
> > ethernet; it's becoming rarer over time. They ~all need firmware
> > loading to get onto the network with wifi. M
Russ Allbery dijo [Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:52:46AM -0700]:
> If we happen to fall down this leg of the Trousers of Time, I would be
> inclined to explicitly reinstate option A in any SC ballot options that
> would make A consistent with the SC as revised.
>
> In practice, I think this specific
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Now, my thinking wandered off to the following timeline:
> almost-nowoVoting is open with the A,B,C,D,E option set.
> |We know the Secretary has warned that some options
> |winning might trigger his obligation to mark the
>
ecause non-free firmware was used to get Debian
running, the user will now think "oh, free software is useless." (I would
go so far as to say that this often seems like the official position of
the FSF.) But this is nonsense. I cannot overstate how much the typical
user does not care abou
and then will look at starting a separate GR to update SC point 5 based on
> the outcome of that vote.
> (...)
Yes. I completely agree with your rationale here. Particularly the
point about "non-free-firmware installer" and "SC#5
updating/rewording" being almost-orthogona
Steve McIntyre writes:
> Many common laptops in the last 5-10 years don't come with wired
> ethernet; it's becoming rarer over time. They ~all need firmware
> loading to get onto the network with wifi. Many now need firmware for
> working non-basic video, and audio also needs firm
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Thanks -- this helps me understand the two principles at play here:
> 1) having a free Debian
> 2) having a Debian that works on as much hardware as possible
This summary is moving in the right direction! But your phrasing of 2)
isn't the principle that I personally
come with wired
ethernet; it's becoming rarer over time. They ~all need firmware
loading to get onto the network with wifi. Many now need firmware for
working non-basic video, and audio also needs firmware on some of the
very latest models. The world has changed here, and I think your
perceptions may be ou
Steve McIntyre writes:
>>I think the difference of opinion is that your proposal is based on the
>>argument that it is worth compromising on the ideals of free software in
>>order to allow users to be able to run free software. I disagree with
>>that opinion. If you disagree with my
Debian is intended to be a practical, real-world, usable operating system
> for regular computers, not (solely) a research experiment or ideological
> statement. And I would say that one of the motives of Steve's proposal
> (or, at the least, one of my motives for agreeing with it) is that I
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 02:16:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> However, I feel strongly that the non-free installer *has* to be
> handled differently. If not, we're choosing to fail on (some of) our
> principles. This is why I'm here with this GR after all.
So do I. Or does proposal A describe
On 9/11/22 19:41, Steve McIntyre wrote:
As far as many vendors are concerned, the firmware blobs are
basically part of the hardware. They're just provided in a cheaper,
more flexible way - loading things at runtime.
To me, this is an important part of the situation we find ourselves
Paul Wise writes:
> Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates,
> except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
I think that may be true from the perspective of what Debian is *allowed*
to do, but not in the sense of the guidance that the project is
Holger Levsen writes:
> or maybe, it's possible to reword option E, because my only problem
> is with the last sentence which reads
> "We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing
> the current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.&
On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:28 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> * Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
> tl;dr: No
> * Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
>
al, real-world, usable operating system
>for regular computers, not (solely) a research experiment or ideological
>statement. And I would say that one of the motives of Steve's proposal
>(or, at the least, one of my motives for agreeing with it) is that I think
>we, some time ago, reac
east
not enough to design special hardware for us with a different firmware
setup. As far as many vendors are concerned, the firmware blobs are
basically part of the hardware. They're just provided in a cheaper,
more flexible way - loading things at runtime. Lots of vendors have
made those firmware blobs
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 10:37:03AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
>
>> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
>
>I disagree strongly on this.
>
>We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
>making to our
guidance or
>a clear enough decision, but I'm not sure if that's true.
Quite. I can understand and sympathise with that suggestion, but I'm
really hoping for specific direction from the wider project here
rather than just a "we allow this" SC update. That latter would leave
the decision on fir
acing
the current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages."
and which I'd rather like to read
"We will publish these images as official Debian media, in addition to
the current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages."
(so s#replacing#in ad
project
guidance to the team working on the installer and installation media, at
their explicit request, on how to handle non-free firmware. I think the
options already on the ballot provide a good range of possible decisions
the project can make and directly address that request. We can decide
ern that we will want to address. I think we can
address this with a vetting policy to avoid any license that would cause
problems with distribution, but there is certainly a chance that I am
underestimating the difficulties. But my impression is that the
non-freeness of firmware is mostly about preferred
> Is this helping our users or does it help the free software cause if those
> users just go somewhere else and asscociate Debian with "broken"?
> Those are lost users, and they will never learn and then care about their
> missing freedoms.
Not only they are lost users; but they will spend the
ere should we be allowed to mention/document/promote
> the images containing non-free firmware?
>
> Currently the existing images containing non-free firmware are
> mentioned on the download page linked from the website front page,
> but are labelled "unofficial" and i
le to solve.
> >
> > As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
> >
> > Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are directed by the
> > Debian website to download the free installer, they try it out, find it
> > doesn't work on their
esponsibility solve the consequences
> of that choice seems misguided to me.
Hardware has always required non-free firmware (with very few
exceptions); for various reasons less hardware preinstalls them. There
is not much change in freeness here.
> It makes it harder for users to
> experienc
are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
>
> Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are directed by the
> Debian website to download the free installer, they try it out, find it
> doesn't work on their hardware and then abandon Debian in favour of
> other distros, or ask questions
t;
> Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are directed by the
> Debian website to download the free installer, they try it out, find it
> doesn't work on their hardware and then abandon Debian in favour of
> other distros, or ask questions about it to the Debian support channels
>
On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> appears solved or possible to solve.
As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are di
is present or has to be retrieved, this would likely work
here as well except for "very early" firmware.
For those, we need a mechanism to decide what is "very early" anyway,
because it needs to go into the initramfs in order to be available
before the installer has found
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 12:46:05PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
> content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
> I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
good thing that we have 5
On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 08:51:21AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While firmware is the most important category of software not available
> in Debian main needed by Debian users at install time, there are others.
>
Hi Paul,
I think there's a couple of issues here that
o, just to see if I understand, the part that you're specifically
> objecting to is the willingness of the installer to load non-free firmware
> before starting to prompt the user for their preferences, combined with
> the lack of an installer that has no non-free firmware in it?
>
> My un
On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 19:54 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Syria are excluded by most non-free
Hi all,
While firmware is the most important category of software not available
in Debian main needed by Debian users at install time, there are others.
Some that I can think of are drivers and accessibility aids, for eg:
The broadcom-sta-dkms Broadcom WiFi driver is only in non-free
On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 10:48 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If there is time left, though, I'm considering proposing the following
> option based on my earlier message, just so that there's something on the
> ballot that explicitly modifies the Social Contract to allow for non-free
&
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:01:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> On 2022/09/09 18:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
> > use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
> > Software
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:13:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>
> If we were to include any non-free software/firmware on something that's
> called official Debian installer media that is said to conform to our
> standards
That's exactly the point of changing
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:04:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We probably do need to say something about how you need to review the
> licenses for non-free software before using or distributing it. This is
> true for users as well.
>
> How about:
>
> We encourage careful review of the
ds it must contain to achieve those
objectives, the better.
I happen to agree with you, although at the same time, we can't make
hard promises on some things and then also purposefully go ahead and do
something that's the complete opposite.
If we were to include any non-free softwar
On 2022/09/09 18:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
Looks good to me. It summarizes the gist of the issue very
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Syria are excluded by most non-free licenses.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ʀᴜꜱꜱɪᴀɴᴇꜱ ᴇᴜɴᴛ ᴅᴏᴍᴜꜱ
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀
⠈⠳⣄
ould it be reasonable instead for text to enumerate which of the DSFG
freedoms installers etc distributed by Debian are permitted to
compromise on rather than just a blanket "allow non-DFSG-free"?
If we say that images distributed by Debian would be permitted to
compromise, for firmware on
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
I disagree strongly on this.
We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
making to our users, and then stop. Specifically, we should avoid
including text
ay not even be any remaining upstream, but I assume
> you were primarily thinking of non-free-firmware when drafting this
> phrase.
Yeah, I think this wording is not quite 100% correct. I think what
Jonathan is getting at is that we do not provide security support for
non-free s
cifically
objecting to is the willingness of the installer to load non-free firmware
before starting to prompt the user for their preferences, combined with
the lack of an installer that has no non-free firmware in it?
My understanding of the proposal is that the point of loading firmware as
needed
e absolutely any technical improvements they wish to these
packages, the only thing they can't do is change the license to be
DFSG-free. There's probably less motivation to work on non-free
software, and there may not even be any remaining upstream, but I assume
you were primarily thinking of non-free-fir
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> With your proposal, Debian 'main' would still consists of free content,
>> but to practically install and run any of it, we and our users would
>> have to download non-free content.
> So just like
bian archive
> New: containing non-free software from the Debian archive
>
> The old phrase was misunderstood as if this proposal would be opposing the
> addition of a new section named non-free-firmware. The new phrase better
> reflects that software in section non-free-firmware is als
1 - 100 of 1198 matches
Mail list logo
