On 16/12/10 09:53, Marcos David Cáceres wrote:
El 16 de diciembre de 2010 10:16, Nicolás Reynolds <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> escribió:El 16/12/10 11:12, Henry Jensen dijo: > Thanks for your work. As I see it the main difference between the > Squeeze kernel and Linux-Libre is the ability to load non-free firmware > and as such the very mentioning of non-free firmware files in the > soruce code. > > The Squeeze kernel is still able to load non-free firmware, but it's > not delivered in the main repository (it is in the non-free repo, > AFAIK). > > Linux-Libre isn't able to load non-free firmware, even if you obtain > the non-free firmware files somehow. > > So, it's a matter of attitude. Do we give the user the opportunity to > use non-free software if he wishes to do so, despite the > recommendations, or do we prevent it proactively? > > For example, GNU Icecat doesn't suggest non-free plugins. But Icecat is > still able to load non-free plugins, it is not prevented proactively. > Of course, the main difference is, that non-free software isn't > mentioned in the Icecat source code (at least I assume so, I didn't > check), where non-free software is explicitly mentioned hard-coded in > the source code, so the situation is only slightly comparable. > > Giving the user the ability to use non-free software without any > comment leads to a situation where unexperienced users might be not > knowing what they are doing. For example Debian help forums are full of > advices for novice users to activate the non-free repository. Same goes > for Fedora where novice users are encouraged in forums to integrate > non-official repositories with non-free software. > > To proactively prevent the use of non-free software on the other hand > is censorship. I recall RMS pointing out in an interview that any free > operating system should allow to do anything. I CC him, maybe he has > some thoughts to add. > > Kind regards, > > Henry > > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:56:07 -0800 (PST) > "Jason Self" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > In light of Debian's recent announcement [1] I and others were interested in how > > well the Debian folks cleaned up their kernel. I proceeded to grab the source > > for the Squeeze kernel, ran the linux-libre deblobbing script on it, and then > > diffed it against the original to see what had changed. > > > > The full deblob log [2] & diff [3] is available to anyone that's interested in > > knowing. > > > > [1] http://www.debian.org/News/2010/20101215 > > [2] http://aws.bluehome.net/squeeze_kernel_deblog_log.txt > > [3] http://aws.bluehome.net/squeeze_kernel_diff.txt I recall this discussion had place a year ago between linux-libre and ututo (I mean between people behind those projects), where your same arguments were used. And IIRC, finally there was a note in the linux-libre site saying that loading nonfree firmware isn't banned anymore. Haven't tested it though, and I can't seem to find it... I'm CCing the lists where the discussion had place. -- Salud! Nicolás Reynolds, xmpp:[email protected] <mailto:xmpp%[email protected]> omb:http://identi.ca/fauno blog:http://selfdandi.com.ar/ gnu/linux <http://selfdandi.com.ar/%0Agnu/linux> user #455044 http://librecultivo.org.ar http://parabolagnulinux.orgA ver si entiendo. Esta es la eterna discusión de si quien es más papista que el papa, no? La gente de Debian dice (por lo que logré entender) que prohibir la carga de blobs propietarias es 'censurador' y otra gente dice que el kernel, para ser libre (como linux-libre) no debería siquiera permitir esto, no?
No, precisamente están diciendo que para considerarlo como libre, no debería impedir hacer nada. Por lo tanto, linux-libre ofusca los nombres de los archivos y de ésta manera no recomienda módulos privativos pero puede cargarlos. [he asked for an explanation, little explanation given in spanish]
