Linux Firmware again

[ldoolitt]

I think the options in the last two polls are misleading, so here's my slant.

This is my first try at a poll, I hope it works. If not, it's supposed to go like this:
What binary firmware belongs in Debian Main for etch?
Free Software with source code
above, plus 45 files that were also shipped as part of sarge
above, plus 6 more files that are legally BSD licensed
anything at all, including 7 new GPL'd files for which we can't satisfy license paragraph 3

[rickh]

This issue just gets deeper. I haven't voted here yet, because I feel like there may still be more surprises upcoming.

I think your Option 3 should actually be option 2 ... Then I'd like to know what Popularity Contest suggests that the overall userbase effect would be of simply moving those other 45+7 drivers to non-free.

I read your link at the end of the other thread ... Seems to me to be good work.

[ldoolitt]

I think your Option 3 should actually be option 2 ... Then I'd like to know what Popularity Contest suggests that the overall userbase effect would be of simply moving those other 45+7 drivers to non-free.

Unfortunately, 39 the 45 don't even belong in non-free, because they are this insane amalgam of sourceless-binary and GPL.
The license and for all those files _really_ need to be resolved for etch+1, but I predict that will involve both a lot of work [*] and some functionality regression. Not what people can stomach before etch.

I read your link at the end of the other thread ... Seems to me to be good work.

Thanks! There's more to do.

[*] Contact driver authors, get referred to the real copyright owners for the firmware, get the firmware relicensed under BSD, split the firmware out to firmware-nonfree, hack the driver to use request_firmware(), submit to upstream. Lather, rinse, repeat 38 times. This is also the path to take for the 7 new files, although Debian has the option of removing them without regressing from sarge.

[cornofulgur]

How many devices am I willing to destroy inside my workstations and servers ? 58, 13 or just 7 ?

err, zero obviously.

> I predict that will involve both a lot of work and some functionality regression.

Don't change Debian, I will take an hammer to destroy my devices.

[ldoolitt]

How many devices am I willing to destroy inside my workstations and servers ? 58, 13 or just 7 ?
err, zero obviously.

Does this mean you have at least _one_ of the affected devices?
Are you willing and able to test out patched drivers, that have
the free driver separated from the non-free firmware?
In particular, we have tg3 code ready to try, but the only volunteer so
far had a card that doesn't need replacement firmware.

[cornofulgur]

ldoolitt> Does this mean you have at least _one_ of the affected devices?

No idea. I read AIC and tigoon and I remember this was hardware I occured to work on, but I don't remember if it was Debian OS. One of the advantage of debian for me is the fact that is support a wide range of hardware, x86, ppc, sparc, alpha. We are all certain that it will be more and more firmware in the future. It's a good news for us, the users. I can't understand if Debian choose to regress in supporting our hardware.

If Debian choose to unsupport my hardware in the next releases, I will choose to uninstall Debian.

> Are you willing and able to test out patched drivers, that have the free driver separated from the non-free firmware?

I am able to test any Debian package but I don't have any time for this. I like very much all these packages.
I am not willing to help elaborate the "apartheid installer" because I strongly disagree with your wording of "non-free firmware", and it is not the good choice for me the user, and I think it is not the good choice for free software.
Debian-legal fails to convince RMS and Torvalds. You cannot assume you're alone in the free world. Tagging upstreams works as non-free is not a friendly signal.

> In particular, we have tg3 code ready to try, but the only volunteer so far had a card that doesn't need replacement firmware.

How would you call his OS, free or non-free ? That makes no sense : hardware is never free.
Ha yes! I remember being unable to install testing with a broadcom two years ago. Grrr!

[lazyboy]

I totally agree with cornofulur! (and also have an tg3 chip inside my thinkpad, but it's running Ubuntu and it's and important work machine, so I cannot play around with it, especially not for such a reason).

Instead of helping users being able to use their computers, too many debian developers seem to think day in day out about the next political non-free debate and how bad Ubuntu is.

You won't change the world into a free software world by getting rid of all users who have hardware you don't want to support mainly because of political reasons!

Better organize something(protests in front of ATI offices, for example) that everybody who needs gpl'd drivers with source for their hardware to increase the pressure on the manufacturers, but don't increase the pressure on your users.

Henning

[lazyboy]

I think the options in the last two polls are misleading, so here's my slant.

Erm, _your_ poll options are misleading, not the others - you make it impossible to chose what is the obvious result from the other polls.
Namely that the majority of users don't care about the exact number of non-sourced firmware as long as they can use their hardware!

[ldoolitt]

I think the options in the last two polls are misleading, so here's my slant.

Erm, _your_ poll options are misleading, not the others - you make it impossible to chose what is the obvious result from the other polls.
Namely that the majority of users don't care about the exact number of non-sourced firmware as long as they can use their hardware!

Well, at least I introduced it as having a slant.

The other polls don't make it clear that "dozens" of Linux kernel source files can not be legally distributed, and the number of illegal and non-DFSG-free files is increasing with each kernel revision. I can see arguments for grandfathering the files already in sarge, because regression is indeed a bad thing. I can't understand why it is more important to release etch "on time" _and_ supporting the latest whiz-bang hardware, than it is to avoid regressing on our Social Contract.

In my mind, two things distinguish Debian from other distributions: its social contract, and a commitment to quality code. I, personally, don't consider releasing sourceless "GPL" code to be consistent with either characteristic.

[ldoolitt]

We are all certain that it will be more and more firmware in the future. It's a good news for us, the users. I can't understand if Debian choose to regress in supporting our hardware.

My vote (not that it matters) is to explicitly not regress in supporting hardware, but to choose not to add new files that violate the DFSG. Supporting hardware is good,
but calling sourceless firmware "DFSG-free" is not possible.

If you want to use Linux on a system that needs such firmware, you have to get a copy that includes non-free material. Other Linux distributions might sweep that fact under the rug. Debian, by its defining princples, can not.

If Debian choose to unsupport my hardware in the next releases, I will choose to uninstall Debian.

You don't even know if you are affected. That, in itself, is evidence that Debian's treatment of sourceless firmware is not satisfactory.

Debian-legal fails to convince RMS and Torvalds.

Your statement is demonstrably false regarding RMS. [url http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html ]
I'm curious to see what Torvalds says on this subject matter a year from now.

[ldoolitt]

You won't change the world into a free software world by getting rid of all users who have hardware you don't want to support mainly because of political reasons!

That is what's known as a straw man [url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ] argument. I don't say anything of the sort, and there isn't anything there to deny!

I think Debian should support the hardware with sourceless firmware. We just can't call it DFSG-free software, and it therefore belongs in some other category than main.

The other category of problematic devices is where the soureless firmware has been released under the GPL. Nobody can legally distribute that code. Big companies might get away with it, because they have a warchest with which to either pay fancy lawyers to drag out the court case, or settle out of court. Individuals probably have no fear, because nobody will bother to sue them. Debian is in an awkward middle ground -- shallow pockets, and a visible entity for some Microsoft pawn to make an example of.

The sooner those no-mans-land files get dropped from Debian, the better. Unfortunately, it looks like at least 40 of them will definitely stay in etch.

[cornofulgur]

We are all certain that it will be more and more firmware in the future. It's a good news for us, the users. I can't understand if Debian choose to regress in supporting our hardware.

My vote (not that it matters) is to explicitly not regress in supporting hardware, but to choose not to add new files that violate the DFSG. Supporting hardware is good,
but calling sourceless firmware "DFSG-free" is not possible.

Yes it is. Just consider to test licences freedom for programs and don't try to apply it for non-programs works that are not used the same way than programs.

If you want to use Linux on a system that needs such firmware, you have to get a copy that includes non-free material. Other Linux distributions might sweep that fact under the rug. Debian, by its defining princples, can not.

Your definition is not valid. It causes you to delay releases, to drop packages, to rewrite installers absurdely. When we were in 2004 the Debian non-free branch was almost void with an old netscape. The non-free was not really needed by users at this time. Since this time, Debian is feeding non-free with capital bits dropped from main. Do you think it is a good choice to make main and non-free intricately joined because of a definition ? All the Debian users will end using non-free with this method.

It is not harmful for the users to put GFDL invariants in main, mozilla firefox logo or redistributable firmware. I don't need the ability to MODIFY these sorts of works, I just want to be able to DELETE them if I want. I can't DELETE firmware stored in the hardware.

Please, Debian importance is to free programs, all the programs. Freeing icons, fonts, hardware and docs are not the priority of Debian. Debian is an operating system not a juke box and I suppose I can ask a DD to focus on programming issue.

You don't even know if you are affected. That, in itself, is evidence that Debian's treatment of sourceless firmware is not satisfactory.

The users doesn't need source for firmwares. They don't need to modify the GNU Manifesto. If the users don't demand something, you may consider that it is not a freedom requirement.

So, fighting to obtain the source of firmware is not a usefull fight, I prefer to ask ATI to publish the spec.

Debian-legal fails to convince RMS and Torvalds.

Your statement is demonstrably false regarding RMS. [url http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html ]
I'm curious to see what Torvalds says on this subject matter a year from now.

I must recognize it is a huge point for you side.
I was speaking of the GFDL debate. The upstream authors are not convinced by the arguments and I imagine they disagree with the "horrors" operating on their work (desactivating hardware, dropping docs, defacing icons). I'm a Linux user, I don't use The Hurd yet.