On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Not trying to be flamy, but... > > - there's a 100% Free kernel source alternate upstream that tracks > kernel.org very closely, that's identical except for the removal of > non-Free firmware, and that's been available for quite a while > (linux-libre) I think the suggestion that we move to an alternate source for the kernel, is short sighted and not in the long term best interests of this project. > > - there's a viable alternate source for firmware, both Free and > non-Free, and it has been available for quite a while (dwmw2's > firwmare git repo) Define "quite a while now". By Woodhouse's own words in this thread, he feels we are "close" to offering a solution. Perhaps he's got a better feel for the timescales involved than you do. Is it in time for F10? no. Is that ultimately so important? no. People are working on it. If David feels things are "close" then we will hopefully see this land for reals in the development tree in time for spins to take advantage of for the F11 release process. > > - the removal of firmware upstream won't take place in linux-2.6.27, > which pretty much means kernel.org linux sources won't be stripped off > of non-Free bits in time for Fedora 10 Timescales are not my primary concern, process is. Is there an upstream process in place now on how do deal with the movement of firmware out of the kernel source into a separate source collection? If so, are things now in a state where people interested in our community could choose to actively participate to accelerate the rate at which fireware is moved out of the main kernel source tarball, using the upstream process as part of the F11 Feature scoping? > > - Fedora still prefers to ship the encumbered bits, making it > impossible to distribute 100% Free spins of Fedora 10 without > distributing or committing to distributing the non-Free bits in the > corresponding sources of the kernel > > Care to help me understand how that is responsive or makes sense from > the project's point of view? I'm quite puzzled at that. Honestly, no. I personally do not care to help you specifically understand what I consider to be the established project's pov. I've personally come to the point where I don't think its worth anyone's time to try to talk to you specifically. Your views are quite entrenched. Even for people who are sympathetic to your points of view, and it seems to be there are many such people, its difficult to discuss things with you and feel like it was worth the time. So honestly why bother. If progress is going to be made, its quite doubtful that it will be done with further consultation with you. Hopefully, you'll eventually benefit from the end result, even if you don't appreciate the means by which other people make it happen. But for anyone else still paying attention to this I'll say this. I believe that the project's stance on firmware policy is well documented and has been in place for so long that to call it controversial would be a stretch. In light of that standing project policy, I believe the right way forward, and the way that maximizes benefit everyone is to work directly with upstream to make working with firmware more flexible for everyone...regardless of the timescale that it takes. The question I care about the most is this. Is our involvement as a project, even indirectly, helping upstream make progress on the issue of increasing the flexibility of firmware distribution options and firmware distribution usage. -jef"AFK for the next 10 hours...doing yard work"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
