Answers inline
James Cameron wrote on 1/17/2021 2:16 PM:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:03:10PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote:
James,
I booted up the latest Sugar-live-build image, which I'd downloaded from
http://people.sugarlabs.org/~quozl/sugar-live-build/ and written to a USB
stick, and booted it up in an HP-branded terminal from ~2012, which works
perfectly fine with the latest Fedora SoaS images.
Thanks for testing.
Simply bundling the 'firmware-amd-graphics' package from the
firmware-nonfree repo when you build the Live image would mean the image
would work correctly on a vastly larger amount of hardware, out of the box.
I would encourage you to take it one step further, and bundle the
firmware-linux-nonfree metapackage, which will include firmware for things
like Marvell wireless cards, Intel wireless cards, Atheros wireless cards
(both USB and integrated/PCI/PCIe)
How will Sugar Labs comply with the licenses of these firmwares?
I'm afraid I don't understand what the concern is here. "Sugar" isn't
subject to anything different from a licensing perspective, and
therefore under no obligation to "comply" with anything:
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8849/does-distributing-gpl-software-along-with-binary-image-force-the-binary-image-to
All of the firmware images packaged by Debian in the non-free repo is
freely redistributable, but not open-source.
Fedora packages them, and includes them by default. Their LiveCDs/images
work out of the box with them. Debian packages them, but does not
install them by default, presumably out of ideological reticence.
Since the goal of the Debian Sugar LiveCD should be to work,
transparently, on as many computers out-of-the-box as is possible, this
would seemingly be an obvious improvement. It's not possible to install
from this LiveCD on a ton of "modern" hardware (the machine I'm using is
from 2011) with the current state of bundled packages. If the goal is to
only allow it to function fully on machines which are incapable of
functioning fully without binary firmware blobs, I'd argue that this
should be disclosed during the installation process.
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
