On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 07:21:02PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 11:31 -0600, dann frazier wrote: > [...] > > > It is the intention of the kernel team to: > > > > This sounds more like a "plan" instead of a position statement. imo, a > > position statement should be more along the lines of what we will > > permit and what we won't, as opposed to what we are currently planning > > to work on. > > That's true, but the original had this too. Let's change the title to > "Kernel team plan for handling sourceless firmware". > > [...] > > > d. Disable affected drivers in category 1, and in category 2 where > > > relicensing is impossible > > > > This is the one part where I have a different view - I don't see any > > problem with enabling these drivers and adding request_firmware > > support. > > I don't think our views differ significantly. > > > We can't redistribute them, but users are free to way their > > own legal risks and install these files from other sources. And to me, > > that's no reason to force them to compile their own kernel. > > > > Of course, I'm not saying that we should consider that work a > > priority but, if provided with a patch (or one is inherited from > > upstream), I don't see why we should reject it. > > I agree there's no reason to reject patches. In cases where a driver > depends on non-free firmware and cannot load it from a separate file at > run-time then we disable it. It makes sense to prioritise any work we > do based largely on popularity of the hardware and availability of the > firmware to our users. I compressed that into the sloppy wording in (d) > above. > > I agree with all your other proposed clarifications. > > Ben.
yep, me too. thanks for decrufting that old statement. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org