Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 23, 2008, Chris Snook <csnook@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Err... This would mean that whoever distributes the kernel binaries
would be required to ship the corresponding sources containing
non-Free Software, which is precisely the sort of thing I'd like to
avoid, such that I and others who refuse to distribute non-Free
Software can promote Fedora at least to some extent.
Pardon my ignorance, but I honestly don't see a risk in shipping
*sources* which contain hex-coded firmware blobs that have been
licensed for distribution,
This is not about the risk. This is about not distributing non-Free
software. For me, it's not a matter of licensing, not a matter of
license compatibility. It's a matter of not supporting the
distribution of non-Free Software, no matter how hidden it is, or how
important it is for some.
I'm not taking away anyone's choices. I'm just adding means for
people to run and distribute Fedora while being more assured they're
not using or distributing any code they got from Fedora that is
non-Free Software.
But I maintain that it would be more effective if you would do it in a
fashion that would be more conducive to getting people who are less
aware of these issues to actually use your work. Most people won't
notice what you're doing, and I think that harms your mission.
If you'd like that incentive to carry any weight, perhaps you should
write a patch that has a chance of getting accepted into Fedora
proper.
A patch won't fix this. People keep on adding firmwares to the
upstream kernel. It has to be a continous monitoring and maintenance
process. It's painful, I know. I'm willing to do it, to keep a 100%
Free kernel. I'm willing to do it for myself, even if it's not
integrated in Fedora.
The upstream kernel is already moving away from in-tree firmware. I
think if you did this in an extremely visible way, by breaking out the
non-free blobs from the core Fedora kernel that millions of people use,
it would be a greater service to this effort.
Now, if Fedora doesn't take it, it will say something about Fedora's
stance towards freedom. I know I differ from Fedora in this regard
already, so that's no big deal.
Personally, I just want to install the package called "kernel".
Unless I have an absolutely compelling reason, I'm not going out of my
way for anything else, be it "kernel-libre" or "kernel-firmware".
I respect your position, even though I disagree with it. That's one
of the reasons why I've started this as a separate kernel-libre
package, rather than asking Fedora to drop all the non-Free firmware
in the kernel and outside, out of coherence with its stated mission.
I'm a contributor to the upstream kernel, and I oppose in-tree blobs.
My point is that if *I* am lazy about this, we can expect the
overwhelming majority of users to be lazy about it as well. You've
designed this in a manner that makes it useful only for preaching to the
choir. If that's your goal, so be it. I think that your idea is very
useful, and if implemented slightly differently, it could reach a lot
more people and have a much greater impact.
However, some people find the existence of non-Free Software a
sufficiently compelling reason to want a 100% Free kernel, and then a
100% Free distro. I wish Fedora could be it. If it doesn't want to
be, that's fine, there's always BLAG.
I think you'll accomplish more by pushing Fedora to be more Free than by
starting your own fork. That's your prerogative, but you've clearly put
a lot of thought into this, and it would be a shame if all that effort
had to be duplicated to push Fedora (more gradually) in the same direction.
-- Chris
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
