Why not a restricted-modules package in non-free?

Message

mzilikazi · #16 Post by **mzilikazi** » 2007-07-25 20:36

While I do not necessarily like the idea of non-free things in general I do have to agree that expecting anyone (new user or old-hand) to build a driver for their wireless card so they can do a netinstall is counter-intuitive. It just doesn't work. If you have wired ethernet and can do the install that way great but that's not always the case nor should it have to be.

This is not the same argument as nv vs. nvidia. Your X server still works w/ the nv driver. Without wireless working you're pretty much screwed.

I have considered building some drivers myself but keeping up with the many kernels would be too much for me to handle with the limited time I have on hand.

Velvet Elvis · #17 Post by **Velvet Elvis** » 2007-07-25 21:03

I think part of the issue is that ubuntu is willing to stuff that can get them sued because they have gold plated space toilets at Canonical anyway.

Debian, not so much.

Perhaps you should change the poll to:

Should debian expose itself to litigation so that newbies shut up and quit complaining:

a. yes
b. no

jdhore · #18 Post by **jdhore** » 2007-07-25 21:14

Velvet Elvis wrote:I think part of the issue is that ubuntu is willing to stuff that can get them sued because they have gold plated space toilets at Canonical anyway.

Debian, not so much.

Perhaps you should change the poll to:

Should debian expose itself to litigation so that newbies shut up and quit complaining:

a. yes
b. no

First, the phrase in the quote that i bolded = greatest phrase ever.
Second, that's a very interesting way of looking at it and i certainly didn't think about that.

Dargor · #19 Post by **Dargor** » 2007-07-26 03:52

What makes you guys think debian should be agains non-free things, debian already has a non-free repo so it should be made use of it.
If somebody actually was making the packages would you flame them, just because it was non-free.
Nobody is asking you to do it, so just move on and do something that you think is important. Dont stop people from doing what they think is important, at the end of the day it has all helped debian.

Velvet Elvis · #20 Post by **Velvet Elvis** » 2007-07-26 09:04

There's a difference between non-free and illegal to distribute.

Some other distros distribute things when they do not have the legal right to do so. To put it in windows terms, it's putting warez on the distro CD. People should call Mint Linux what it is: A warez distro.

That's not just non-free. It's illegal. It places anyone who makes a distribution based on yours at legal risk as well.

Ie, if ubuntu includes GPL licensed kernel blobs for which no source exists, that does not suddenly grant all ubuntu derivatives the legal right distribute them just because it was ubuntu and not the derivative that chose to violate the GPL. It just means that ever single distro based on ubuntu can be sued by whoever owns the copyright.

It's not just about high minded ideals. It's also about following the law so you don't get your ass sued off. Putting out a stable OS also means making sure that nobody can sue you out of existence. Microsoft is already claiming that Linux distros are full of stolen intellectual property when they are not. Doing stuff like stealing intellectual property and putting it in linux distros does not help the linux community defend itself.

If you want to trade in warez, use windows.

BioTube · #21 Post by **BioTube** » 2007-07-26 15:16

The kernel includes binary blobs by default(the only distro I know of that removes them is gNewSense).

perlhacker14 · #22 Post by **perlhacker14** » 2007-07-26 15:57

BioTube wrote:The kernel includes binary blobs by default(the only distro I know of that removes them is gNewSense).

I suppose that may be part of the reason RMS now uses and glorifies it...

BioTube · #23 Post by **BioTube** » 2007-07-26 16:55

But he won't ever put out a GNU distro of Linux. After all, that would just be the final nail in the coffin for his GNU/Linux ego trip.

Velvet Elvis · #24 Post by **Velvet Elvis** » 2007-07-26 17:36

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-s ... 00012.html

Velvet Elvis · #25 Post by **Velvet Elvis** » 2007-07-26 17:37

GNU has some kind of plans for it, maybe.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-s ... 00012.html

Sorry about the double post. There was a browser burp.

BioTube · #26 Post by **BioTube** » 2007-07-26 19:07

That's about HURD, the third(or fourth?) UNIX clone to date and the only I know that's been in development so long without reaching 1.0. IMO, people who work on the HURD are wasting their time(forking Linux or BSD would probably be more productive).

Velvet Elvis · #27 Post by **Velvet Elvis** » 2007-07-26 19:24

I read the thread.

I stumbled across it this morning in a fit of insomnia and it's a bit of a brainfuck.

RMS says:

Our lawyers think that they can relicense Linux if they want to.
It is important to do this, to protect the users from tivoization.

Yes the thread starts off talking about HURD. He clearly says linux, and there is no way he means anything but the kernel by that.

BioTube · #28 Post by **BioTube** » 2007-07-26 19:45

I don't like the GPLv3 for the very reason RMS cites. It attempts to control hardware with a software license. I don't think even the craziest M$ lawyer ever thought of that.

But somebody brought up Linux as an example of people "forgetting their freedom"(evidently Fedora and Debian aren't free while HURD is).

perlhacker14 · #29 Post by **perlhacker14** » 2007-07-26 22:08

BioTube wrote:I don't like the GPLv3 for the very reason RMS cites. It attempts to control hardware with a software license. I don't think even the craziest M$ lawyer ever thought of that.

But somebody brought up Linux as an example of people "forgetting their freedom"(evidently Fedora and Debian aren't free while HURD is).

I would guess that Microshaft has enough control over machines (Vista forensic aids, User Profile collecting for data soon) to be bothered with considering extending the EULA...
Debian is exceedingly free... As long as you use only official repos with only main enabled.

BioTube · #30 Post by **BioTube** » 2007-07-26 22:35

I can't say I know of any software license beyond GPLv3 that actually says "You can't do x with your hardware."

Vergil · #31 Post by **Vergil** » 2007-07-27 01:38

BioTube wrote:That's about HURD, the third(or fourth?) UNIX clone to date and the only I know that's been in development so long without reaching 1.0. IMO, people who work on the HURD are wasting their time(forking Linux or BSD would probably be more productive).

I bet people working on the hurd don't care about being productive (assuming that means having more installs) but doing something different and unique.

BioTube · #32 Post by **BioTube** » 2007-07-27 01:45

By productive, I mean not spending ten year in development without ever having a functional product. Wine shouldn't be able to implement the Windows API perfectly on Linux before the HURD becomes usable.

alleluia20 · #33 Post by **alleluia20** » 2007-07-27 13:15

Maybe the thread is derivating into an off-topic about HURD (It was Linus who said "quit drugs and you'll forget about HURD, wasn't he?

)

Of course, I am not talking about doing illegal things. But if nvidia and fglrx are now in the repository, the sources of madwifi and uvc are now (and I have to run m-a everytime I upgrade the kernel...), why not make binaries and a metapackage restricted-modules? No illegalities would be added...

BioTube · #34 Post by **BioTube** » 2007-07-27 17:04

It would just be inconvenient for the mirrors.

Debian User Forums

Why not a restricted-modules package in non-free?

Should there be a restricted-modules package in non-free?