Hi a11!
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and including (non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the decision on which path is the correct one.
I'm *not* going to propose full text for all the possible choices
here; as eloquently suggested by Russ [5], it's probably better to
leave it for other people to come up with the text of options that
they feel should also be on the ballot.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this. Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to *not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
[1] https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00130.html
[3] https://debconf22.debconf.org/talks/43-fixing-the-firmware-mess/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hi a11!
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1,
2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and
including
(non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when
trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is
needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what
we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward,
but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make
the
decision on which path is the correct one.
I'm *not* going to propose full text for all the possible choices
here; as eloquently suggested by Russ [5], it's probably better to
leave it for other people to come up with the text of options that
they feel should also be on the ballot.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will
include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide
information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries
just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing
the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by
default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-
speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the
installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this.
Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to
*not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still
do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still
enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about
firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
[1] https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00130.html
[3]
https://debconf22.debconf.org/talks/43-fixing-the-firmware-mess/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.
steve@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til
I'm sane...
Thanks Steve for this going forward!
(seconded.)
Hi a11!
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and including (non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the decision on which path is the correct one.
I'm *not* going to propose full text for all the possible choices
here; as eloquently suggested by Russ [5], it's probably better to
leave it for other people to come up with the text of options that
they feel should also be on the ballot.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this. Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to *not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
[1] https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00130.html
[3] https://debconf22.debconf.org/talks/43-fixing-the-firmware-mess/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
Hi a11!
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and including (non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the decision on which path is the correct one.
I'm *not* going to propose full text for all the possible choices
here; as eloquently suggested by Russ [5], it's probably better to
leave it for other people to come up with the text of options that
they feel should also be on the ballot.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this. Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to *not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
[1] https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do--
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00130.html
[3] https://debconf22.debconf.org/talks/43-fixing-the-firmware-mess/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
Hi a11!
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and including (non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the decision on which path is the correct one.
I'm *not* going to propose full text for all the possible choices
here; as eloquently suggested by Russ [5], it's probably better to
leave it for other people to come up with the text of options that
they feel should also be on the ballot.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this. Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to *not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
[1] https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00130.html
[3] https://debconf22.debconf.org/talks/43-fixing-the-firmware-mess/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...
Hi a11!
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and including >(non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the >decision on which path is the correct one.
I'm *not* going to propose full text for all the possible choices
here; as eloquently suggested by Russ [5], it's probably better to
leave it for other people to come up with the text of options that
they feel should also be on the ballot.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this. Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to *not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
[1] https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00130.html
[3] https://debconf22.debconf.org/talks/43-fixing-the-firmware-mess/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com >You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...
3) Ensure that the filename of the installation media includes
"non-free-firmware" or something similar so that it is clear to
everyone what they are getting into. Debian has had such a long
history of not including non-free bits in the installation image
that people will definitely be surprised if the filename does not
reflect this change.
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
Thanks for working on this somewhat controversial topic. I haven't spend that >much time thinking about the issue yet but perhaps the following steps could >help make this less controversial:
1) As it is pretty impossible to write a clear definition of
firmware, we should require packages in non-free-firmware to clearly
explain where the code will get executed to allow people to make
informed decisions. Some people are more ok with having code run on
an external device than on the main CPU.
2) Ensure that the installer will inform users about non-free-firmware
packages that are about to be installed and possibly also allow the
user to see their full description.
3) Ensure that the filename of the installation media includes
"non-free-firmware" or something similar so that it is clear to
everyone what they are getting into. Debian has had such a long
history of not including non-free bits in the installation image
that people will definitely be surprised if the filename does not
reflect this change.
4) If at all possible, keep the fully free installation media available as
was already suggested earlier.
Hi a11!
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and including (non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the decision on which path is the correct one.
I'm *not* going to propose full text for all the possible choices
here; as eloquently suggested by Russ [5], it's probably better to
leave it for other people to come up with the text of options that
they feel should also be on the ballot.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this. Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to *not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
Seconded.
As a potential tweak:
The text says that we will include ways to disable this at *boot time*;
how about being explicit that we will provide ways to disable at >*installation time* too? Arguably this is implied by '[t]he target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component
_by default_ …' already but I think we could stand to be more concrete >about that.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
If I'm not mistaken, code to do this already exists, and seems to work
well (but do correct me if I'm wrong).
Hmmm, maybe. To clarify: are you thinking about:
* adding an option to not install the firmware while the installation
happens; or
* adding a (boot?) option to not load it once the new system is
installed and booted
? I'm not sure the latter is much use, so I'm thinking you mean the
former. I think we can do that (in expert mode / low-prio debconf
question?) as part of what we're looking at, but I'm not 100% sure it necessarily has to be spelled out in this much detail in the GR?
Hi a11!
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and including (non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the decision on which path is the correct one.
I'm *not* going to propose full text for all the possible choices
here; as eloquently suggested by Russ [5], it's probably better to
leave it for other people to come up with the text of options that
they feel should also be on the ballot.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this. Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to *not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
[1] https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00130.html
[3] https://debconf22.debconf.org/talks/43-fixing-the-firmware-mess/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.
steve@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
Hey Wouter!
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
That's a fair point, my text was unclear here. Let's tweak it:
"Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
default in the apt sources.list file."
Does that sound better?
If I'm not mistaken, code to do this already exists, and seems to work
well (but do correct me if I'm wrong).
Ish! :-)
We don't have any code in d-i to deal with the *non-free-firmware*
component yet, but I#m sure we can adapt the existing stuff around
non-free / contrib to suit.
Do we need to update the Debian Social Contract for that?
Specifically paragraph 1, which currently reads
Debian will remain 100% free
On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 12:19 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
I think this would be confusing: detachable hardware (e.g., USB
devices) would work or not work depending on whether it was connected
at installation time. At least for amd64 it wouldn't make a different
either way due to the microcode firmware packages.
For the same reason the system should probably install all (reasonable) firmware by default, just like we install all kernel drivers even for
devices that are not present on the target system.
I don't see a difference between having non-free files in the archive
and non-free files on the installation images. If having individual
non-free files was not acceptable then we would have to define the
archive not part of Debian as well.
In addition the Social Contract explicitly asks people building
installation images[1] to include the "contrib" and "non-free" parts of
the archive. With this change we just follow that ourselves 😼
openSUSE has this clever system that hooks into zypper (their apt
equivalent) to install the firmware package on demand if a matching PCI
ID is found (presumably USB device identifiers too, but I'm not sure).
This could be a nice longer-term solution? In the shorter term, for
another distro comparison, Fedora does what Ansgar suggests and just preinstalls a lot of firmware.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
"Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
default in the apt sources.list file."
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
On 16594 March 1977, Timo Lindfors wrote:
3) Ensure that the filename of the installation media includes
"non-free-firmware" or something similar so that it is clear to
everyone what they are getting into. Debian has had such a long
history of not including non-free bits in the installation image
that people will definitely be surprised if the filename does not
reflect this change.
Actually, people are surprised we are hiding the useful images (with firmware) somewhere in some subdirectory away currently.
3) Ensure that the filename of the installation media includes
"non-free-firmware" or something similar so that it is clear to
everyone what they are getting into. Debian has had such a long
history of not including non-free bits in the installation image
that people will definitely be surprised if the filename does not
reflect this change.
Actually, people are surprised we are hiding the useful images (with
firmware) somewhere in some subdirectory away currently.
I recognize myself in both. I prefer the installer not including non-free bits,
and the ("unofficial") installer is difficult to find when I need it. Why not advertise the free and non-free installers side-by-side?
(...)
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
I don't see a difference between having non-free files in the archive
and non-free files on the installation images. If having individual non-free files was not acceptable then we would have to define the
archive not part of Debian as well.
Yes, and the DSC explicitly does that in paragraph 5.
That is my point: with the current DSC, the Installer images cannot be "part of Debian" according to this definition, because that would misrepresent the license as being DFSG compliant.
Thus, we need a third kind of software between "vetted to be DFSG compliant as promised in the DSC" and "you're entirely on your own because this
package is not officially part of Debian" for this to be useful for users.
On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 16:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Do we need to update the Debian Social Contract for that?
Specifically paragraph 1, which currently reads
Debian will remain 100% free
No. Just like we don't need to update the Debian Social Contract for
having https://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/: we just ship
additional files that might be useful for people having specific
hardware.
Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 16:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Do we need to update the Debian Social Contract for that?
Specifically paragraph 1, which currently reads
Debian will remain 100% free
No. Just like we don't need to update the Debian Social Contract for
having https://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/: we just ship additional files that might be useful for people having specific
hardware.
I disagree -- what is being proposed here is to replace our current DSC-compatible free software installer images with non-free. That goes significantly further than what the spirit of DSC§5 suggests.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:39:21AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 16:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Do we need to update the Debian Social Contract for that?
Specifically paragraph 1, which currently reads
Debian will remain 100% free
No. Just like we don't need to update the Debian Social Contract for having https://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/: we just ship additional files that might be useful for people having specific hardware.
I disagree -- what is being proposed here is to replace our current DSC-compatible free software installer images with non-free. That goes significantly further than what the spirit of DSC§5 suggests.
It not being replaced; there are just additional bits in there which
help people to actually be able to install Debian on some modern machines.
The guarantee in SC1 that we will never *require* those non-free bits, as writen
out in "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component."
This GR does not violate this promise.
Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> writes:
That seems incorrect. Here is a quote from the proposal:
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images).
...
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
^^^^^^^^^
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
Steve McIntyre writes:
Hi a11!
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and including
(non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the
decision on which path is the correct one.
I'm *not* going to propose full text for all the possible choices
here; as eloquently suggested by Russ [5], it's probably better to
leave it for other people to come up with the text of options that
they feel should also be on the ballot.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this. Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to *not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
[1] https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00130.html
[3] https://debconf22.debconf.org/talks/43-fixing-the-firmware-mess/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
Seconded.
Ansgar
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:39:21AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 16:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Do we need to update the Debian Social Contract for that?
Specifically paragraph 1, which currently reads
Debian will remain 100% free
No. Just like we don't need to update the Debian Social Contract for
having https://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/: we just ship
additional files that might be useful for people having specific
hardware.
I disagree -- what is being proposed here is to replace our current
DSC-compatible free software installer images with non-free. That goes
significantly further than what the spirit of DSC5 suggests.
It not being replaced; there are just additional bits in there which
help people to actually be able to install Debian on some modern machines.
Bart Martens dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:24:32PM +0200]:
We'd take away the free installer.
If a free installer is still produced and offered alongside the one
including non-free-firmware, would you feel more at ease? That sounds
like an easy compromise to make, and many people would probably
welcome it.
Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
would be available.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 05:48:28PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> writes:
That seems incorrect. Here is a quote from the proposal:
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images).
...
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
^^^^^^^^^
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
We are replacing stuff very often, for example when we update the installer it
is replaced too. For me, the replace in the proposal is meaning that kind of replacing.
We'd not taking anything away in respect to the spirit of SC-1.
--
tobi
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images).
...
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
^^^^^^^^^
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
We are replacing stuff very often, for example when we update the installer it
is replaced too. For me, the replace in the proposal is meaning that kind of
replacing.
Yes indeed. It's replacing a free installer by a non-free one.
We'd not taking anything away in respect to the spirit of SC-1.
We'd take away the free installer.
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
proposal.
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will
*not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free
firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include
non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that
newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be
hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
less visual priority.
=================================
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
proposal.
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will
*not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free
firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include
non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that
newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be
hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
less visual priority.
=================================
Bart Martens dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:24:32PM +0200]:
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images).
...
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
^^^^^^^^^
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
We are replacing stuff very often, for example when we update the installer it
is replaced too. For me, the replace in the proposal is meaning that kind of
replacing.
Yes indeed. It's replacing a free installer by a non-free one.
We'd not taking anything away in respect to the spirit of SC-1.
We'd take away the free installer.
If a free installer is still produced and offered alongside the one
including non-free-firmware, would you feel more at ease? That sounds
like an easy compromise to make, and many people would probably
welcome it.
Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
would be available.
So there may be some unintended consequences where new users may
associate "100% free software" with "not functional" and "induces pain
and frustration", such that it might end up *hurting* the cause of
free software.
If a free installer is still produced and offered alongside the one
including non-free-firmware, would you feel more at ease? That sounds
like an easy compromise to make, and many people would probably
welcome it.
Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
would be available.
Whether we recommend the one with non-free firmware or not (some have proposed that the "free" installer would have "visual priority",
whatever that means), I suspect there will be various Linux newbie or
FAQ's, external to Debian, that will warn users that the using the
"free" installer will just cause them pain and frustration.
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
proposal.
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will
*not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free
firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include
non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that
newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be
hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
less visual priority.
=================================
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
proposal.
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will
*not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free
firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include
non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that
newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be
hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
less visual priority.
=================================
Whether we recommend the one with non-free firmware or not (some have proposed that the "free" installer would have "visual priority",
whatever that means), I suspect there will be various Linux newbie or
FAQ's, external to Debian, that will warn users that the using the
"free" installer will just cause them pain and frustration.
So there may be some unintended consequences where new users may
associate "100% free software" with "not functional" and "induces pain
and frustration", such that it might end up *hurting* the cause of
free software.
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
Theodore Ts'o dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 04:13:20PM -0400]:
Whether we recommend the one with non-free firmware or not (some have proposed that the "free" installer would have "visual priority",
whatever that means), I suspect there will be various Linux newbie or FAQ's, external to Debian, that will warn users that the using the
"free" installer will just cause them pain and frustration.
Of course. OTOH, without the firmware, we cause that same pain and frustration. You might be making a good point for Steve's original
proposal, of course.
So there may be some unintended consequences where new users may
associate "100% free software" with "not functional" and "induces pain
and frustration", such that it might end up *hurting* the cause of
free software.
The sad thing is... That it is true :-(
Back to the vote, another option would be to not consider firmware (not running on the CPU) as software and we keep the 100% free software images with non-free firmware included. This implies this new component should only include firmware (there were discussions to broaden its use in the past).
I can briefly rehash the rationale: firmware were previously shipped in a
ROM with the hardware and they have been moved to being loaded by the OS instead for various reasons (cost, ease of update), but this does not fundamentally change their nature, except that we have to distribute them. There is no difference in the level of "freeness" we provide to the user,
but there is a huge difference in usability.
I would consider making both installers equally easy to find a betterand also described as "For *convenience* for *some users*, this
outcome than the current status quo, where the version which is more
likely to be useful for modern laptops is kept hidden and hard to find
Quoting Tobias Frost (2022-08-22 15:57:01)
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:39:21AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 16:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Do we need to update the Debian Social Contract for that?
Specifically paragraph 1, which currently reads
Debian will remain 100% free
No. Just like we don't need to update the Debian Social Contract for
having https://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/: we just ship
additional files that might be useful for people having specific
hardware.
I disagree -- what is being proposed here is to replace our current
DSC-compatible free software installer images with non-free. That goes
significantly further than what the spirit of DSC§5 suggests.
It not being replaced; there are just additional bits in there which
help people to actually be able to install Debian on some modern machines. >>
The guarantee in SC1 that we will never *require* those non-free bits, as writen
out in "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component."
This GR does not violate this promise.
I understand how we will not require non-free bits getting *installed*.
The way I see it, with this change we will require non-free bits for *distribution* of our system, because our official installer will now
include non-gree bits.
In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
proposal.
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will
*not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free
firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include
non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that
newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be
hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
less visual priority.
=================================
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works
fine and in general I have not needed to enable non-free/contrib for
hardware support. You may have other purposes for which it does not
work, but that doesn't make it useless for everyone, and there are alternatives available to solve your use-case (unofficial non-free
installer) that doesn't entail the cost of abandoning the free software ideals of the Debian project.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works
fine and in general I have not needed to enable non-free/contrib for
hardware support.
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract �1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract �5 which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
With this GR proposal there would no longer be an installer without those non-free bits.
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today.
That makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the
following lines.
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people who
create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never
make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in
the main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and
will not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract
§5 which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The
packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although
they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD
manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use
and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image
with non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but
that we support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
/Simon
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
proposal.
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will
*not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free
firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include
non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that
newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be
hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
less visual priority.
=================================
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following lines.
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §5 which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
Quoting Tobias Frost (2022-08-22 15:57:01)
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:39:21AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 16:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Do we need to update the Debian Social Contract for that?
Specifically paragraph 1, which currently reads
Debian will remain 100% free
No. Just like we don't need to update the Debian Social Contract for >> > > having https://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/: we just ship
additional files that might be useful for people having specific
hardware.
I disagree -- what is being proposed here is to replace our current
DSC-compatible free software installer images with non-free. That goes >> > significantly further than what the spirit of DSC§5 suggests.
It not being replaced; there are just additional bits in there which
help people to actually be able to install Debian on some modern machines. >>
The guarantee in SC1 that we will never *require* those non-free bits, as writen
out in "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component."
This GR does not violate this promise.
I understand how we will not require non-free bits getting *installed*.
The way I see it, with this change we will require non-free bits for *distribution* of our system, because our official installer will now include non-gree bits.
Would those arguing for the availability of the 100%-free installer find
it acceptable if there was a way of cleansing the non-free bits from the includes-nonfree-firmware installer images?
I'd guess that one could put the non-free bits on the end of the image,
as an additional session, or perhaps just mark them in the image, and
then reasonably trivially trim them off, or blank them out.
We could then generate the firmware-included images, but make the
cleansed ones available on-line by having a server-side script trim out
the non-free bits on the fly.
If that still makes you feel dirty, because the free bits were once
next-door to some non-free bits, would it make any difference if the resulting images could be built reproducibly without access to any of
the non-free components?
I'm mostly asking this to find out where people's lines are, but also in
the hope that we could come up with a compromise that allows us to get
away from the enthusiasm sapping situation where the debian-cd team is required to make images that they know are sub-optimal for many of our
users.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a
number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works
fine and in general I have not needed to enable non-free/contrib for
hardware support.
That's very interesting. Can you share the spec for those machines, and
if possible point to where they can be bought?
I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
*required* a non-DFSG image.
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today.
That makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the
following lines.
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people who
create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never
make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in
the main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and
will not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract
§5 which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The
packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although
they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD
manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use
and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image
with non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but
that we support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
/Simon
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian *required* a non-DFSG image.
would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"?
I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
*required* a non-DFSG image.
would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"?
As I laid out my reasoning (which you partly snipped), I see no way that could be achieved. Do you?
I mean, DSC#1 says that "Debian will remain 100% free" - how is that
possible if an official part of Debian is omitted?
Or how is it possible for the firmware-containing image to be free?
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works fine and in general I have not needed to enable non-free/contrib for hardware support.
That's very interesting. Can you share the spec for those machines, and
if possible point to where they can be bought?
I use Dell R630 servers,
From 2014 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PowerEdge_servers#Generation_13
Talos II workstation,
HP ProLiant ML310e small server,
and Lenovo X200/X201 laptops. Yeah the laptop is 10+ years old,
but to be honest every time I try a modern laptop I don't notice any
real difference except fancier display and longer battery life, neither
of which I find important.
Yes I am aware that I can install non-free firmware on the R630, but for
my purposes (VM host, CI/CD, fuzzing, crypto/math computations) they do
more harm than good so I chose not to.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a
number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works
fine and in general I have not needed to enable non-free/contrib for
hardware support. You may have other purposes for which it does not
work, but that doesn't make it useless for everyone, and there are
alternatives available to solve your use-case (unofficial non-free
installer) that doesn't entail the cost of abandoning the free software
ideals of the Debian project.
/Simon
Hi Simon,
I don't think you quite picked up on my meaning. The free installer is absolutely useless _because_ you are already using a machine containing a bunch
of firmware (that you may or may not know anything about) - disk drives, basic
drivers for graphics cards. If the free installer works, it's because you already have firmware.
Now we're in a situation where non-free firmware is absolutely required for basic functionality - without the Intel non-free firmware, you can't run sound for a visually impaired user to install if you have some Intel laptops. That VI user will *never* be able to install Debian.
I don't think everyone can affort the energy (in)efficiency of a decade
old hardware. Most users will also have more recent hardware; I don't
know much 10+ years hardware still in productive use...
Either way, such ancient hardware is probably not a good example for
the firmware problem: it was a significantly smaller problem back then.
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a >> number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works
fine and in general I have not needed to enable non-free/contrib for
hardware support.
I don't think you quite picked up on my meaning. The free installer is absolutely useless _because_ you are already using a machine containing a bunch
of firmware (that you may or may not know anything about) - disk drives, basic
drivers for graphics cards. If the free installer works, it's because you already have firmware.
Hi Andrew. Ah, thanks for explaining what you meant. I have no problem
with builtin non-upgradeable firmware -- see https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria for rationale. So I still disagree
with you, but now for a different reason.
Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 16:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Do we need to update the Debian Social Contract for that?
Specifically paragraph 1, which currently reads
Debian will remain 100% free
No. Just like we don't need to update the Debian Social Contract for
having https://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/: we just ship additional files that might be useful for people having specific
hardware.
I disagree -- what is being proposed here is to replace our current DSC-compatible free software installer images with non-free. That goes significantly further than what the spirit of DSC5 suggests.
On 2022-08-23 18:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I mean, DSC#1 says that "Debian will remain 100% free" - how is
that possible if an official part of Debian is omitted?
Or how is it possible for the firmware-containing image to be free?
If we consider firmware (not running on the CPU) to not be software.
(I only see that being possible by treating the install image as not
part of Debian, which I consider an unacceptable interpretation).
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works
fine and in general I have not needed to enable non-free/contrib for
hardware support. You may have other purposes for which it does not
work, but that doesn't make it useless for everyone, and there are alternatives available to solve your use-case (unofficial non-free
installer) that doesn't entail the cost of abandoning the free software ideals of the Debian project.
/Simon
Just be aware that this rationale can have the opposite of its intended effect in the long term:
https://ariadne.space/2022/01/22/the-fsfs-relationship-with-firmware-is-harmful-to-free-software-users/
I find that if I assume the DSC points are unordered, and numbered only
for reference, then there's sentences in there that support the offering
of official images including firmware by default, even while considering
the iso as a Debian component.
I find that if I assume the DSC points are unordered, and numbered only
for reference, then there's sentences in there that support the offering
of official images including firmware by default, even while considering the iso as a Debian component.
Interesting, can you explain quoting the text supporting that?
Simon Josefsson dijo [Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 07:57:36PM +0200]:
I find that if I assume the DSC points are unordered, and numbered only
for reference, then there's sentences in there that support the offering >> > of official images including firmware by default, even while considering >> > the iso as a Debian component.
Interesting, can you explain quoting the text supporting that?
Simon, while the topic we are discussing is clearly divisive and close
to the heart for many of us, we should try to keep the debate as civil
as possible.
No, you didn't insult anybody. But there are ways of saying the same
without raising the confrontational threshold.
Phil's text reflects on his personal opinions and reading angles ("I
find that if I assume..."). You could probaby say "I cannot find the
same meaning you propose, even while reading the items with random
ordering" or something like that, and it would feel
less... Aggressive.
Thanks!
On 2022-08-23 18:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
(I only see that being possible by treating the install image as not
part of Debian, which I consider an unacceptable interpretation).
For me installation media are more or less just a glorified non-tarball
of archive contents. So I apply the same standards I would apply to a
tarball of the Debian archive (which would include non-free).
Though I understand some people would like if non-free was removed from
the archive as well (possibly to a separate archive).
Debian should try to cater (more) for [less-technical] users, becauser
if we reject newbies, they will take the curiosity somewhere else
Quoting Ansgar (2022-08-23 19:44:17)
On 2022-08-23 18:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
(I only see that being possible by treating the install image as not part of Debian, which I consider an unacceptable interpretation).
For me installation media are more or less just a glorified non-tarball
of archive contents. So I apply the same standards I would apply to a tarball of the Debian archive (which would include non-free).
So you do not consider installation media part of Debian?
Bart Martens dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:24:32PM +0200]:
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images).
...
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
^^^^^^^^^
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
We are replacing stuff very often, for example when we update the installer it
is replaced too. For me, the replace in the proposal is meaning that kind of
replacing.
Yes indeed. It's replacing a free installer by a non-free one.
We'd not taking anything away in respect to the spirit of SC-1.
We'd take away the free installer.
If a free installer is still produced and offered alongside the one
including non-free-firmware, would you feel more at ease?
That sounds
like an easy compromise to make, and many people would probably
welcome it.
Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
would be available.
I would consider making both installers equally easy to find a better
outcome than the current status quo, where the version which is more
likely to be useful for modern laptops is kept hidden and hard to find
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
proposal.
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will
*not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free
firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include
non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that
newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be
hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
less visual priority.
=================================
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian *required* a non-DFSG image.
would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"?
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
There are no jobs on a dead planet.
Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
would be available.
Do we need to recommend one above the other? I'd rather use some short explanation per installer to help the user choose.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 03:33:27PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian *required* a non-DFSG image.
would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"?
It would be nice to have both installers presented on the front page, so users
can choose. I have no strong opinion on whether the "plus" installer would be called official or not.
On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 12:32 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
Is the Debian Images team willing to continue to produce the images >containing only packages from main?
I understood from the initial blog post they aren't willing to do that.
I wouldn't want Debian to vote for them to work on fully-free images if
they still don't want to do that, so I'm not sure of the practicality
of this proposal and so I would find it hard to rank it on the ballot.
PS: this seems similar to but less detailed than my earlier proposal:
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/683a7c0e69b081aae8c46bd4027bf7537475624a.camel@debian.org
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:32:23AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
would be available.
Do we need to recommend one above the other? I'd rather use some short >explanation per installer to help the user choose.
I would suggest that "abandoning the free software ideals of the Debian >project" is significantly mis-characterising what's going on here.
Debian has always been pretty pragmatic about enabling the use of
non-free software by our users, even while maintaining the strict
separation of non-free from main.
That is after-all what's kept the FSF mildly upset with us all these
years. I don't suppose that including non-free-firmware on our ISOs
will help with that, but it also doesn't really make things any worse.
By not having the non-free-firmware on our media, we really do lose new >users, all the time.
In particular, people that don't have any choice regarding their
hardware often fail to install anything useful with our 100% pure ISOs.
Those people are likely to have obtained some old hardware either as a
gift or very cheaply, and do not have a budget for an RFY wifi stick.
Debian with the non-free drivers often runs really well on such
hardware, giving people that would otherwise be digitally excluded a
viable option.
Encouraging such people to waste their efforts downloading an ISO that
we know is quite likely to fail for them, while hiding the image we know
they really need strikes me as a form of abuse.
A lot of people will abandon the attempt after a single failure.
Every one of these lost users is a potential Debian contributor. Driving
them away is an act of self-harm, and does more damage to Free Software
than could possibly be done by admitting the truth that for many
(newbies in particular) the tainted ISOs are what people really want.
There will be plenty of time to explain that their they should choose a >better wifi card if they get the chance once they have managed their
first install, but if we continue to set up obstacles at the start then
they won't even be around to listen.
My reading of that is that the FSF RYF program does not meet the needs
of people who do not care about having a fully free software system.
Now we're in a situation where non-free firmware is absolutely required for basic functionality - without the Intel non-free firmware, you can't run sound for a visually impaired user to install if you have some Intel laptops.
The free installer is ideal for virtualisation only because it's
sitting on top of a bunch of idealised hardware.
It would be nice to have both installers presented on the front page, so users
can choose. I have no strong opinion on whether the "plus" installer would be called official or not.
I have no problemHi!
with builtin non-upgradeable firmware -- see >https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria for rationale.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:51:10PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
Debian with the non-free drivers...
We're talking about non-free **firmware, not non-free
**drivers**. Sorry to play the pedant card here (and I know you know
the difference!), but this is a common mistake and a lot of users
really get the two confused. </rant>
I'm wondering how the d-i team feels about that (having the image with non-free
bits called unofficial). Or whether it makes any sense at all, say, having such
an essential component developed by fellow Debian members, using official Debian resources, and still being named 'unofficial', just for our convenience (?)
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
In practice, the free installer is useless on its own.
That is not my experience -- I'm using Debian through its installer on a number of laptops, desktops and servers, and for my purposes it works
fine and in general I have not needed to enable non-free/contrib for
hardware support. You may have other purposes for which it does not
work, but that doesn't make it useless for everyone, and there are alternatives available to solve your use-case (unofficial non-free
installer) that doesn't entail the cost of abandoning the free software ideals of the Debian project.
/Simon
For ecological reasons, we decided to try (whenever possible) to use servers as long as possible, as much as 15 years. In many cases that's possible. For example, old Dell PowerEdge R610 servers can be equipped with 2x newer CPUs (it's a 2 socket mother board), more RAM, and recent network boards (like Mellanox ConnectX4). All of that costs a fraction of the price of a new server. In many cases, this type of server can handle the workload very
well. For example, it's ok for a Ceph MON machine, or a Swift proxy machine (as long as you need only CPU + network load, not storage, this kind of servers are fine).
I don't
know much 10+ years hardware still in productive use...
Either way, such ancient hardware is probably not a good example for
the firmware problem: it was a significantly smaller problem back then.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
On August 23, 2022 5:38:52 PM GMT+02:00, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote:
I have no problemHi!
with builtin non-upgradeable firmware -- see >https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria for rationale.
I've always had a really hard time understanding that rationale,
despite not doubting the FSF's good intentions. Would you indulge in
an exaggerated thought experiment to help me understand?
Machine A is a pretty normal laptop. It runs whatever you want, but
in order for it to be usable, it needs non-free firmware. Say CPU
microcode and some GPU firmware blob. Said firmware is upgradable
(the user has to initiate the upgrade, but may not be able to load
any code they want).
Machine B has two independent CPUs. CPU 1 is wonderfully free, and
in itself requires no non-free firmware to run. However, CPU 2 is
completely outside of the user's control. It runs 10 GB worth of
proprietary OS. On top of that is a proprietary emulator for CPU
1. CPU 1 is hard-wired to pass any instruction it executes on to the proprietary OS running on CPU 2, which executes it in its
proprietary emulator. But hey, all that stuff running on CPU 2 is
completely non-upgradable, burned in at the factory only and
physically unchangeable.
My recent experience with servers (10 and 25 Gbits/s dual port SFP+) is that you need firmware for network cards when running with:
- Broadcom (bnx2 / bnx2x)
- Qlogic
- Intel (they partially work without the firmware-misc-nonfree package though)
No additional package is needed for Mellanox cards.
IIRC the "official" thing came in because someone produced a CD for a magazine cover for some early release (1.2 maybe?) that was actually
slightly pre-release,
because their publication date was set to coincide with the actual
release, but there was a significant bug with that CD image, so we
were forced to call the actual release CDs 1.2.1 (or whatever) in
order to distinguish between the other (widely distributed, buggy)
version and the actual release.
I seem to remember that is was quite annoying at the time.
Calling certain images "official" was an attempt to stop that sort of
thing happening again.
Does anyone still mass-produce CDs?
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:20:15PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
With this GR proposal there would no longer be an installer without those non-free bits.
Would you consider proposing an alternative ballot option,
instead of
repeatedly stating your dislike of this one?
Debian's voting system allows anyone to propose a ballot option that has their position represented, and Steve explicitly invited it. This will
lead to a ballot which represents the various positions in the project
and allows anyone to rank them.
This is a rather beautiful way to turn the conflict of different
opinions into value, rather than hostility.
Enrico
--
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-24 10:12:48)
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Seconded. Thanks for proposing this alternative, Bart.
In my view, this alternative and the one proposed by Simon achieve technically the same
but communicated vastly different - which to me is
(unfortunately) a sensible reason to have them both on the ballot.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Does anyone still mass-produce CDs?
I think we could simply forget about the term "official" now, and just
let people download whatever's current, in whichever variant suits their purpose best ("free" vs. "free+firmware").
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 07:14:26PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-24 10:12:48)
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Seconded. Thanks for proposing this alternative, Bart.
In my view, this alternative and the one proposed by Simon achieve technically the same
Really? My text is meant to cover the concerns of both Simon and Steve. I share Simon's concern on keeping free and non-free strictly separate, and I also share Steve's concern on users needing non-free firmware for smoothly installing Debian on their hardware.
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
Hi Bart,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:12:48AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
Do you mean that official or unofficial media can contain packages from non-free?
If you mean official media, this is more radical than Steve's proposal.
It would permit arbitrary non-free packages as long as users were
informed.
If you mean unofficial media - that's the status quo. In which case,
this option is the same as Simon's and none of the above.
Ross
Phil Morrell <debian@emorrp1.name> writes:
Just be aware that this rationale can have the opposite of its intended effect in the long term:
https://ariadne.space/2022/01/22/the-fsfs-relationship-with-firmware-is-harmful-to-free-software-users/
My reading of that is that the FSF RYF program does not meet the needs
of people who do not care about having a fully free software system. I
don't see how that is unexpected.
I find that if I assume the DSC points are unordered, and numbered only
for reference, then there's sentences in there that support the offering
of official images including firmware by default, even while considering the iso as a Debian component.
Interesting, can you explain quoting the text supporting that?
Our priorities are our users and free softwareSteve's Debconf22 talk points out both are *equally* important.
We encourage CD manufacturers to .. distribute the packagesTreat "CD manufacturers" as "Debian Images Team" and you get the
We will support people who ... use ... non-free works on Debian.Emphasis on the *we* here, Debian is not adding any intermediary
We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Thanks for this. I have two questions about your proposal. Apologies
if these are answered elsewhere already.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian.
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
First question:
The substantial issue here that requires a GR is the treatment of >non-free-firmware packages. The bits about installation media are kind
of fallout, or implementation details. It might be better to leave
those out of the GR, and just get crystal clear on the project's
treatment of non-free firmware.
Would you feel empowered to implement your changes if the GR passed
without these implementation details? That is, if we voted to permit >non-free-firmware packages on official installation media, live images,
and default installations.
Second question:
It might be good to have rules spelling out what can go into >non-free-firmware. This would help clarify how non-free-firmware isn't
just non-free. Is this in place or in progress? Does the GR need to
include it, or is there some other appropriate mechanism?
Hello,
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images >and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian >archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the >user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
The problem is that the vendors for most devices that include the Intel >hardware require Intel signatures on the firmware binaries.
Some devices (Intel based Chromebooks and UP boards) allow firmware
binaries to be signed by a "community" private key that is public.
In the future Intel may enable a scenario similar to Secure Boot's
Machine Owner Key setup, where device owners can add new signing keys.
https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/issues/5814
In that situation, Debian could sign the audio firmware binaries
instead and allow users to sign their own modified firmware binaries.
The free installer is ideal for virtualisation only because it's
sitting on top of a bunch of idealised hardware.
It could also be useful for devices that run libre firmware, such as
Raptor Computing's ppc64el devices, although Debian does not have
packages of the libre firmware projects for these devices so in
practice it isn't yet useful for those scenarios.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:20:09PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 03:33:27PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
*required* a non-DFSG image.
would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"?
It would be nice to have both installers presented on the front page, so users
can choose. I have no strong opinion on whether the "plus" installer would be
called official or not.
Same here. I've seconded Gunnar's proposal because it's the one which adds the >option. However, referring to it as official is not something I'm fully >comfortable at this point.
I'm wondering how the d-i team feels about that (having the image with non-free
bits called unofficial). Or whether it makes any sense at all, say, having such
an essential component developed by fellow Debian members, using official >Debian resources, and still being named 'unofficial', just for our convenience (?)
Btw, thanks Steve and all involved on this front, I'm just a bit confused and >appreciating the discussion.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 09:40:24AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
In the future Intel may enable a scenario similar to Secure Boot's
Machine Owner Key setup, where device owners can add new signing keys.
https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/issues/5814
In that situation, Debian could sign the audio firmware binaries
instead and allow users to sign their own modified firmware binaries.
Yup, that would be a lovely big win!
I'd prefer us not to get dragged down the "users just need to pick the
right hardware" path. That way potentially lies a (slightly snobbish?)
"you chose wrong, try harder" message that will just push users (and eventually developers) to other distros.
There are always going to be machines that we can't/won't be able to
support, but when the vast majority of current laptops don't function sensibly without non-free firmware I think we have to adapt to reality
in supporting our users.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 08:18:55AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:12:48AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
Do you mean that official or unofficial media can contain packages from non-free?
If you mean official media, this is more radical than Steve's proposal.
It would permit arbitrary non-free packages as long as users were
informed.
If you mean unofficial media - that's the status quo. In which case,
this option is the same as Simon's and none of the above.
Ross
/packages from the non-free *firmware* section/
This is _only_ firmware and not arbitrary non-free packages. It's not drivers per se.
That may sound like implementation details to you, but to me those are
the important parts of the change. I'd rather not be in this position,
and I have a lot of sympathy for the people pushing back on the idea
of maybe compromising our Freeness. This is why I want to spell it out clearly.
Second question:
It might be good to have rules spelling out what can go into >non-free-firmware. This would help clarify how non-free-firmware isn't >just non-free. Is this in place or in progress? Does the GR need to >include it, or is there some other appropriate mechanism?
A few of us have spoken about it, but it's not something that we've
laid down in stone yet. We're looking at packages that install only
non-free binary blobs in /lib/firmware, containing only firmware /
software that executes separately to the control of the main OS. So,
that includes things like firmware for wifi hardware *and* CPU
microcode, but *not* (e.g.) the non-free Nvidia drivers that integrate
with the OS kernel.
I'm less worried about this side - AFAICS ftpmaster and the the people already packaging these things already have a reasonable idea on what
goes where.
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-24 10:12:48)
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Seconded. Thanks for proposing this alternative, Bart.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 09:40:24AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
The problem is that the vendors for most devices that include the Intel >hardware require Intel signatures on the firmware binaries.
Some devices (Intel based Chromebooks and UP boards) allow firmware >binaries to be signed by a "community" private key that is public.
In the future Intel may enable a scenario similar to Secure Boot's
Machine Owner Key setup, where device owners can add new signing keys.
https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/issues/5814
In that situation, Debian could sign the audio firmware binaries
instead and allow users to sign their own modified firmware binaries.
Yup, that would be a lovely big win!
The free installer is ideal for virtualisation only because it's
sitting on top of a bunch of idealised hardware.
It could also be useful for devices that run libre firmware, such as
Raptor Computing's ppc64el devices, although Debian does not have
packages of the libre firmware projects for these devices so in
practice it isn't yet useful for those scenarios.
Right.
I'd prefer us not to get dragged down the "users just need to pick the
right hardware" path. That way potentially lies a (slightly snobbish?)
"you chose wrong, try harder" message that will just push users (and eventually developers) to other distros.
There are always going to be machines that we can't/won't be able to
support, but when the vast majority of current laptops don't function sensibly without non-free firmware I think we have to adapt to reality
in supporting our users.
[...] it lacks a detail I find crucial:
Explicitly spelling out whether or not images containing non-free bits
are official part of Debian or not. Personally I find it obvious that anything that would not be allowed into main also would not be treated
as official part of Debian,
If Bart chose to extend the proposal to include that such media
containing non-free bits (although permitted "alongside with the free
media) would *not* be considered official part of Debian, then I would endorse the amended proposal.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Hi Bart,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:12:48AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
Do you mean that official or unofficial media can contain packages from non-free?
If you mean official media, this is more radical than Steve's proposal.
It would permit arbitrary non-free packages as long as users were
informed.
If you mean unofficial media - that's the status quo. In which case,
this option is the same as Simon's and none of the above.
Ross
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 08:18:55AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
Hi Bart,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:12:48AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
Do you mean that official or unofficial media can contain packages from non-free?
If you mean official media, this is more radical than Steve's proposal.
It would permit arbitrary non-free packages as long as users were
informed.
If you mean unofficial media - that's the status quo. In which case,
this option is the same as Simon's and none of the above.
Ross
/packages from the non-free *firmware* section/
This is _only_ firmware and not arbitrary non-free packages. It's not drivers per se.
The "official" and "unofficial" media are currently prepared by the same
team on the same machines. The "unofficial" media contains non-free firmware (and drivers of all sorts, potentially, that go wider than firmware).
IMHO, they're both official - one is free + free firmware, one is free+non-free
firmware.
Steve's proposal is strictly limited to firmware, here, and there is a separate non-free firmware portion of the archive that was created at Debconf22 in Pristina.
All best, as ever,
Andy Cater
Do we need to recommend one above the other? I'd rather use some short explanation per installer to help the user choose.
In fact, I am not sure if there are any real world examples of modern machinesThere is a significant number of people that explicitly ignore soldered firmware so yes, there are such machines according to them.
that would work properly without such firmware. Are there any machines on the market nowadays that do not require cpu microcode and do not require firmware in their network card?
From absorbing this lengthy thread, my impression is that most folks are considering the nature of "officialness",
therefore I'd like to ask any
proposed text to elaborate on intentions for what "Official Debian"
means
[...]
I hope this kind of email is ok here, even though I'm not able to
directly interact with the GR process (proposing/seconding etc.). If
not, sorry for adding to the 138 messages.
IMO: Both installers should be on the same download page, with a brief explanation on who should select which (like we used to have in package descriptions), and possibly a longer page explaining this in more detail.[...]
Key design points:[...]
- two columns, side-by-side
- avoiding the word "official" completely
- the DFSG and DSC have a prominent place and are set in contrast with
the non-free images
I'm not entirely sure what this would translate to in GR terms, probably something along the lines of
---
Debian recognizes that some modern hardware requires firmware components
that do not fulfill the DFSG, and that these may be needed at
installation time. As our priorities are our users, and free software,
we provide an installer image that includes these components, and inform users that these, like the "non-free" archive component, are not covered
by the Debian Social Contract and provided on a best-effort basis.
---
This, IMO, resolves the conflict with the DSC by clarifying that we are making an exception here and why, and highlights that we still do not believe our users' needs are or can be adequately met by non-free software.
I still urge you to make explicit what will not change. Perhaps borrow
from Simons text, if you (like me) like that?
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-26 10:02:16)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:06:01AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[...] it lacks a detail I find crucial:
Explicitly spelling out whether or not images containing non-free bits are official part of Debian or not. Personally I find it obvious that anything that would not be allowed into main also would not be treated
as official part of Debian,
I share the same concern as you: Steve's proposal would mean that installers
containing non-free firmware become official part of Debian. My text does not.
If Bart chose to extend the proposal to include that such media containing non-free bits (although permitted "alongside with the free media) would *not* be considered official part of Debian, then I would endorse the amended proposal.
That would be repeating what's already true. My text includes only things that
I propose to change. So what is off/unofficially today, remains that. It's like
"the name of the project remains Debian". Why would I mention that.
Does this cover your concern?
It clarifies that my reading matches your intended reading. Thanks!
Unfortunately it does not cover my concern that the text is ambiguous -
i.e. despite intent your choice of words can lead voters to vote for
this text but with varying expectations, which is a very bad situation.
I still urge you to make explicit what will not change. Perhaps borrow
from Simons text, if you (like me) like that?
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
If you mean official media, this is more radical than Steve's proposal. It would permit arbitrary non-free packages as long as users were informed.
If you mean unofficial media - that's the status quo. In which case, this option is the same as Simon's and none of the above.
Ross
/packages from the non-free *firmware* section/
My proposal does not add such new section ...
Bart Martens dijo [Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:59:44AM +0200]:
If you mean official media, this is more radical than Steve's proposal. It would permit arbitrary non-free packages as long as users were informed.
If you mean unofficial media - that's the status quo. In which case, this option is the same as Simon's and none of the above.
Ross
/packages from the non-free *firmware* section/
My proposal does not add such new section ...
Right. I would _oppose_ your proposal if it is to appear in the
ballot, because a freeness _win_ of Steve's proposal is that... People
that need to enable non-free firmware don't need to pull in all of
non-free in order to keep it updated.
I often install packages for getting to know them, just because they
appeared in my list. And my list nowadays includes non-free because of
some firmware. So I have installed non-free software without
noticing. Splitting non-free firmware grants the user some more system freeness guarantees.
Greetings,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 04:18:19PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-26 10:02:16)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:06:01AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[...] it lacks a detail I find crucial:
Explicitly spelling out whether or not images containing non-free bits are official part of Debian or not. Personally I find it obvious that anything that would not be allowed into main also would not be treated as official part of Debian,
I share the same concern as you: Steve's proposal would mean that installers
containing non-free firmware become official part of Debian. My text does not.
If Bart chose to extend the proposal to include that such media containing non-free bits (although permitted "alongside with the free media) would *not* be considered official part of Debian, then I would endorse the amended proposal.
That would be repeating what's already true. My text includes only things that
I propose to change. So what is off/unofficially today, remains that. It's like
"the name of the project remains Debian". Why would I mention that.
Does this cover your concern?
It clarifies that my reading matches your intended reading. Thanks!
Haa wonderful.
Unfortunately it does not cover my concern that the text is ambiguous - i.e. despite intent your choice of words can lead voters to vote for
this text but with varying expectations, which is a very bad situation.
What exactly in my text do you mean?
I still urge you to make explicit what will not change. Perhaps borrow from Simons text, if you (like me) like that?
Simon Richter's text would permit the Debian project to replace the free installer by a non-free one. My text clearly mentions that the free installer is still there. Didn't you prefer the free installer to remain available?
Hi,
On 8/23/22 22:22, Bart Martens wrote:
Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
would be available.
Do we need to recommend one above the other? I'd rather use some short explanation per installer to help the user choose.
This. Both installers have trade-offs:
Free installer:
- will not work with some hardware
+ fully supported
+ can be redistributed freely
Installer including firmware:
+ supports more hardware
- some bugs might be unfixable
- users need to be aware of non-free licenses
The third point is something we can and should address in the medium term:
so far, license checks for non-free components have been mostly "can Debian redistribute this" and "can users install this".
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-26 18:03:30)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 04:18:19PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-26 10:02:16)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:06:01AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[...] it lacks a detail I find crucial:
Explicitly spelling out whether or not images containing non-free bits
are official part of Debian or not. Personally I find it obvious that
anything that would not be allowed into main also would not be treated
as official part of Debian,
I share the same concern as you: Steve's proposal would mean that installers
containing non-free firmware become official part of Debian. My text does not.
If Bart chose to extend the proposal to include that such media containing non-free bits (although permitted "alongside with the free media) would *not* be considered official part of Debian, then I would
endorse the amended proposal.
That would be repeating what's already true. My text includes only things that
I propose to change. So what is off/unofficially today, remains that. It's like
"the name of the project remains Debian". Why would I mention that.
Does this cover your concern?
It clarifies that my reading matches your intended reading. Thanks!
Haa wonderful.
Unfortunately it does not cover my concern that the text is ambiguous - i.e. despite intent your choice of words can lead voters to vote for
this text but with varying expectations, which is a very bad situation.
What exactly in my text do you mean?
The part you *didn't* include (so I cannot point at it or quote it) ;-)
I still urge you to make explicit what will not change. Perhaps borrow from Simons text, if you (like me) like that?
Simon Richter's text would permit the Debian project to replace the free installer by a non-free one. My text clearly mentions that the free installer
is still there. Didn't you prefer the free installer to remain available?
Ha! Indeed Simon Richter's text omit explicitly mentioning that a
non-free installer is in _addition_ to the already free one -
although
that intent is clear from his more elaborate text before the concrete
draft ballot text.
...or paraphrased in your style: His text doesn't say "replace".
Perhaps you see now - through an example not your own - how being
explicit helps avoid ambiguity?
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Seconded.
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following lines.
Seconded, thanks for mentioning the accessibility aspect!
Devin Prater
r.d.t.prater@gmail.com
s/Therefor/Therefore
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image
Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2022-08-24 19:14:26)
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-24 10:12:48)
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Seconded. Thanks for proposing this alternative, Bart.
I hereby withdraw my second for the above proposal.
The third point is something we can and should address in the medium term: >> so far, license checks for non-free components have been mostly "can Debian >> redistribute this" and "can users install this".
Thus, your concern can easily be handled by requiring maintainers and/or ftpmasters to vet licenses of packages before they are moved to non-free-firmware.
Hey Wouter!
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
That's a fair point, my text was unclear here. Let's tweak it:
"Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
default in the apt sources.list file."
Does that sound better?
That changes it from 5 to 4 seconds. It's unclear to me what I need to
do with the discussion period because of this. If I process the message
in order, I think this was accepted and A.1.4 changes the discussion
period.
If only the 2nd option is accepted, I believe the end of the discussion period was the 2022-08-23 + 7 day, so 2022-08-30, which is still before
the original 2022-09-01, so we keep that.
With this option accepted, it would be 2022-08-26 + 7 days, which is 2022-09-02, which is the one I'm using.
We currently have 4 proposals, of which 2 make have enough seconds.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hey Wouter!
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable >the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
That's a fair point, my text was unclear here. Let's tweak it:
"Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
default in the apt sources.list file."
Does that sound better?
Is this something you want to adopt?
Would a non-free-firmware section in the archive be useful, so
that other non-free software is not enabled by default?
Kurt
That changes it from 5 to 4 seconds. It's unclear to me what I need to
do with the discussion period because of this. If I process the message
in order, I think this was accepted and A.1.4 changes the discussion
period.
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
That changes it from 5 to 4 seconds. It's unclear to me what I need to
do with the discussion period because of this. If I process the message
in order, I think this was accepted and A.1.4 changes the discussion period.
Yes, this was the intent. If a ballot option is accepted, the discussion period changes. If sponsors of that ballot option then withdraw so that
it falls below the required number of sponsors, that triggers A.2.3, and there's a 24-hour period where new sponsors can step forward. If that
does happen, there's no change to the ballot. If that doesn't happen, the option is withdrawn, but as A.2.3 says, that doesn't change the discussion period. So, either way, the discussion period is lengthened by the
initially accepted ballot option.
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 07:26:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
That changes it from 5 to 4 seconds. It's unclear to me what I need to
do with the discussion period because of this. If I process the message in order, I think this was accepted and A.1.4 changes the discussion period.
Yes, this was the intent. If a ballot option is accepted, the discussion period changes. If sponsors of that ballot option then withdraw so that
it falls below the required number of sponsors, that triggers A.2.3, and there's a 24-hour period where new sponsors can step forward. If that
does happen, there's no change to the ballot. If that doesn't happen, the option is withdrawn, but as A.2.3 says, that doesn't change the discussion period. So, either way, the discussion period is lengthened by the initially accepted ballot option.
So reading A.2.3, there was a 24 hour window between the withdrawal and finding a new sponsor. It seems that there was more than 24 hours. Does
that mean the option should have been proposed and sponsored again?
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §5 which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will
*not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free
firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include
non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that
newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be
hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
less visual priority.
=================================
On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 10:52:42AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So reading A.2.3, there was a 24 hour window between the withdrawal and
finding a new sponsor. It seems that there was more than 24 hours. Does
that mean the option should have been proposed and sponsored again?
An other interpretation is that if it happens within 24 hours, the
period doesn't change. If it doesn't happen within 24 hours it does. I
think at least that was the intention, and that is what I did.
Free installer:This is a bit more complex than that. The current installer is insecure
- will not work with some hardware
+ fully supportedIs the kernel team actually willing to support systems not running
+ can be redistributed freelyJust like the installer containing non-free firmwares, then.
Installer including firmware:Actually: needed to support all the most widely used hardware, i.e. x86
+ supports more hardware
- some bugs might be unfixableTrue, but OTOH not updating the system firmwares guarantees that some
- users need to be aware of non-free licensesI believe that "need" here is a strong word. Some users will /like/ to
IMO: Both installers should be on the same download page, with a brief >explanation on who should select which (like we used to have in package >descriptions), and possibly a longer page explaining this in more detail. Looks like you are volunteering to build the firmware-free media then,good to know.
If Debian provides an installer image, but does not at the same timeI *am* a corporate user and I believe that the scenario that you are
promise to have vetted all applicable licenses against a list of
criteria that is acceptable to the legal department, this installer
image becomes close to useless to corporate users.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following
lines.
The key you signed this with (A3CC9C870B9D310ABAD4CF2F51722B08FE4745A2)
is not in the debian keyring.
I view the official Debian install image as a component of Debian, and consequently if the (only) official Debian install image were to contain non-free bits then we would violate DSC#1.
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
I view the official Debian install image as a component of Debian, and consequently if the (only) official Debian install image were to contain non-free bits then we would violate DSC#1.
I also find this problematic. As far as I can tell, the alternatives on
this vote that results in Debian shipping non-free software will make
the project violate the current DSC.
Reading https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en.html I don't
understand who decides the majority requirements for voting options, can someone explain? Is it the project secretary? What are they for the
current vote?
I believe it would be bad for the project if the supermajority
requirements of changing a fundational document is worked around by
approving a GR vote with simple majority that says things contrary to
what the DSC says.
On 2022-08-23 10:39, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
The initial proposition was also pushing a new non-free-firmware
component. Are you also against a new component that could be enabled
by users without enabling contrib/non-free?
Hi Kurt!
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hey Wouter!
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable >> >the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
That's a fair point, my text was unclear here. Let's tweak it:
"Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
default in the apt sources.list file."
Does that sound better?
Is this something you want to adopt?
Yes, I think it improves things.
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefore we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the >main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 5 >which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with >non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hey Wouter!
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
That's a fair point, my text was unclear here. Let's tweak it:
"Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
default in the apt sources.list file."
Does that sound better?
Is this something you want to adopt?
Would a non-free-firmware section in the archive be useful, so
that other non-free software is not enabled by default?
If you believe that any of the options conflict with the DSC, I would
like to see a discussion about that too.
It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide
not to include an option that might conflict, or put a 3:1 majority requirement on it because they think it conflicts.
However, if an option that might conflict wins, the Secretary might have
to decide if it conflicts or not, and if it conflicts void the GR.
This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on it?
Hi Simon!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefore we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the >>main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 5 >>which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with >>non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we >>support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on
it?
I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
great. For a long time we've got away without supporting and including (non-free) firmware on Debian systems. We don't *want* to have to
provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we
wouldn't need to. However, it's no longer a sensible path when trying
to support lots of common current hardware. Increasingly, modern
computers don't function fully without these firmware blobs.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the decision on which path is the correct one.
But it's currently not clear if this is a technical or non-technical decision, and so might require a 2:1 majority.
On 8/29/22 16:02, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide
not to include an option that might conflict, or put a 3:1 majority requirement on it because they think it conflicts.
However, if an option that might conflict wins, the Secretary mightI'm having trouble reconciling the two positions of "[not] put a 3:1
have to decide if it conflicts or not, and if it conflicts void the
GR.
majority requirement on it because...it conflicts" and "it conflicts void
the GR".
The only way I can see to reconcile your positions is if a GR is not allowed to supersede a Foundation Document by implication, but must do so
explicitly. Is that your rationale?
Regardless of that, and probably more importantly, I object to the idea that a GR option winning could result in the whole GR being voided. Our voting system is explicitly designed to take into account supermajority requirements. A GR option failing a supermajority requirement should fail by itself, not take down the whole GR with it.
Since there's a good chance you have to make the determination either way, I think it's far better to make that determination before the vote than after. Making the determination now gives people the option to amend their GR options before we go through a vote. That saves time and energy.
https://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
If you believe that any of the options conflict with the DSC, I would
like to see a discussion about that too.
It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide
not to include an option that might conflict, or put a 3:1 majority requirement on it because they think it conflicts.
However, if an option that might conflict wins, the Secretary might
have to decide if it conflicts or not, and if it conflicts void the
GR.
Kurt
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400, Antoine Beaupr wrote:
Hi Steve (and everyone else),
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the decision on which path is the correct one.
Gulp, such a big jump! :) I personnally feel that we should make it
easier for people to install Debian, but I'm not quite sure I'm ready to completely ditch the free images just yet. Maybe we could just promote non-free images a little better, but I would much rather keep the free images around. I guess that makes me a supporter of option "B",
Rather option C. Option B is reinforcing the current situation. C proposes to promote non-free images a little better while keeping the free images.
if I
understand correctly, but I am known for struggling with parsing GR proposals. :)
Thanks again for all your work, and for everyone for having a (so far) rather polite discussion on this possibly difficult topic.
a.
--
Time is a created thing. To say, "I don't have time" is like saying,
"I don't want to."
- Lao Tzu
Hi Steve (and everyone else),
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the decision on which path is the correct one.
Gulp, such a big jump! :) I personnally feel that we should make it
easier for people to install Debian, but I'm not quite sure I'm ready to completely ditch the free images just yet. Maybe we could just promote non-free images a little better, but I would much rather keep the free
images around. I guess that makes me a supporter of option "B",
if I
understand correctly, but I am known for struggling with parsing GR proposals. :)
Thanks again for all your work, and for everyone for having a (so far)
rather polite discussion on this possibly difficult topic.
a.
--
Time is a created thing. To say, "I don't have time" is like saying,
"I don't want to."
- Lao Tzu
Hi Simon!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with >non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we >support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on
it?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
< liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:22:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
Hi Steve (and everyone else),
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the
decision on which path is the correct one.
Gulp, such a big jump! :) I personnally feel that we should make it
easier for people to install Debian, but I'm not quite sure I'm ready to >> > completely ditch the free images just yet. Maybe we could just promote
non-free images a little better, but I would much rather keep the free
images around. I guess that makes me a supporter of option "B",
Rather option C. Option B is reinforcing the current situation. C proposes to
promote non-free images a little better while keeping the free images.
Oops, my bad. B and C are similar on this aspect. A relevant difference is however that in B the non-free images are promoted above the free ones.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hey Wouter!
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
That's a fair point, my text was unclear here. Let's tweak it:
"Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
default in the apt sources.list file."
Does that sound better?
Is this something you want to adopt?
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:49:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hi Simon!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with
non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be
allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on
it?
Debian already does that. Anything available for download on *.debian.org is in
fact distributed by Debian. The label "unofficial" doesn't change that.
My point is that the last paragraph in Simon J's proposal correctly reflects >the current reality. (But I fail to see the value of Simon J's proposal on the >ballot because it is in my understanding equivalent with "further discussion" /
"none of the above" which is already on the ballot.)
Hey Antoine!
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
This, however, strikes me as odd: I would have expected this to be part
of the proposal, or at least discussed here, not implemented out of band >>directly. I happen to think this is a rather questionable decision: I
would have prefered non-free to keep containing firmware images, for >>example. Splitting that out into a different component will mean a lot
of our users setup will break (or at least stop receiving firmware >>upgrades) unless they make manual changes to their sources.list going >>forward. This feels like a regression.
So we'll need to advertise it well so that people pick these changes
up. That's important.
But I want to be *very* clear here that we *don't* want to enable the
whole of the non-free component for all users by default. That would
be a grave disservice, and I think Ansgar agrees with me. There's no
need to hold this back to be part of the GR here IMHO.
Hi Kurt! Let's send this signed now,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hey Wouter!
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable >> >the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
the user explicitly asked to do so).
That's a fair point, my text was unclear here. Let's tweak it:
"Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
default in the apt sources.list file."
Does that sound better?
Is this something you want to adopt?
Yes, I think it improves things.
I particularly want to salute your work on making our users actually
capable of using more modern hardware. I think the proposal you bring up
(and the others that were added to the ballot) will really help move
this problem ahead. I'm actually quite happy with how the conversation
went so far, it seems we have matured quite a bit in our capacity in
handling difficult decisions such as this one.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
This, however, strikes me as odd: I would have expected this to be part
of the proposal, or at least discussed here, not implemented out of band >directly. I happen to think this is a rather questionable decision: I
would have prefered non-free to keep containing firmware images, for
example. Splitting that out into a different component will mean a lot
of our users setup will break (or at least stop receiving firmware
upgrades) unless they make manual changes to their sources.list going >forward. This feels like a regression.
In general, I feel we sometimes underestimate the impact of sources.list >changes to our users. I wish we would be more thoughtful about those
changes going forward. It seems like this ship has already sailed, of
course, but maybe we could be more careful about this in the future, >*especially* since we were planning on having a discussion on
debian-vote about that specific issue?
I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
as I've stated previously I don't want to be making the decision
alone. I believe that the Debian project as a whole needs to make the
decision on which path is the correct one.
Gulp, such a big jump! :) I personnally feel that we should make it
easier for people to install Debian, but I'm not quite sure I'm ready to >completely ditch the free images just yet. Maybe we could just promote >non-free images a little better, but I would much rather keep the free
images around. I guess that makes me a supporter of option "B", if I >understand correctly, but I am known for struggling with parsing GR >proposals. :)
Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with >>>non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we >>>support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be
allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on
it?
Hi Steve. I'm not sure I can reliably answer -- the distinction between >"Debian" as the project and "Debian" as the operating system is (for me) >somewhat blurry and inconsistent throughout the current foundational >documents, and it is equally unclear (to me) in your question.
Do you intend the Debian OS (which to me includes various installers and >other auxilliary software that is needed to produce and maintain an OS)
or the Debian project (which to me is about the community and not the >deliverable)? Or is your understanding of the situation different than
mine so your question really mean different things to us? I have a
feeling that is the case, but it is subtle.
I believe it used to be better in the older social contract which used >'Debian GNU/Linux' in a couple of places which made it clear that the >sentence referred to the deliverable and not the community. That was
lost a couple of years ago, replacing it with 'Debian' which makes it
unclear what it refers to. The website has been similary modified
throughout the years, leading to the same ambiguity.
Speaking personally (and thus merely as an anecdote), my way to resolve
this conflict (when I belatedly decided to join as DD) has been that
'Debian' as an OS is promised to be 100% DFSG free but 'Debian' as a
project will accept to distribute certain non-free material on its
servers. Thus Debian can be labeled as a 100% free OS but Debian as a >project deals with non-free content but not as a first-class citizen.
This has lead to forks that don't want to be stuck with the same dilemma
-- Ubuntu/etc as a non-free variant and gNewSense/PureOS/etc as a free >variant. This inconsistency may continue to be both a curse and a
blessing, allowing Debian to be relevant to both worlds.
I agree with you that improving clarity on this topic will be a good
thing. Fixing that is outside of my current goals though, as what I
want to achieve is to see Debian continue to deliver a 100% DFSG-free
Debian OS. It makes me sad to see such efforts to stop that.
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide
not to include an option that might conflict, or put a 3:1 majority
requirement on it because they think it conflicts.
I'm not disagreeing with Kurt's interpretation here, but as a voter I
would love for one of the proponents of a ballot option to add non-free >firmware to the installer to state that they are going for a 3:1 majority
to modify the Social Contract and add an explicit statement to this effect
to point 5 of the Social Contract. It would only take a sentence, I
suspect, something like:
The Debian installer may include firmware that does not conform to the
Debian Free Software Guidelines to enable use of Debian with hardware
that requires such firmware.
On 2022-08-30 21:11:07, Steve McIntyre wrote:
But I want to be *very* clear here that we *don't* want to enable the
whole of the non-free component for all users by default. That would
be a grave disservice, and I think Ansgar agrees with me. There's no
need to hold this back to be part of the GR here IMHO.
Yeah, so I think that's a great advantage of splitting firmware out of >non-free: it keeps the "non-free blast radius" to a minimum, just to
make sure people can get their hardware working without getting all that >other stuff that they should really opt into.
Yet I actually use non-free for other stuff as well, at a personal
level. Things like documentation, for example, often end up in non-free
for $reasons and I have non-free enabled for *both* this and firmware.
In that sense, why wasn't it possible to have (say) non-free/firmware as
a component, so that when you opt-in to non-free you *also* get
firmware? That would have been a backwards-compatible change...
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 04:27:17PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
On 2022-08-30 21:11:07, Steve McIntyre wrote:
But I want to be *very* clear here that we *don't* want to enable the
whole of the non-free component for all users by default. That would
be a grave disservice, and I think Ansgar agrees with me. There's no
need to hold this back to be part of the GR here IMHO.
Yeah, so I think that's a great advantage of splitting firmware out of >>non-free: it keeps the "non-free blast radius" to a minimum, just to
make sure people can get their hardware working without getting all that >>other stuff that they should really opt into.
Yet I actually use non-free for other stuff as well, at a personal
level. Things like documentation, for example, often end up in non-free
for $reasons and I have non-free enabled for *both* this and firmware.
In that sense, why wasn't it possible to have (say) non-free/firmware as
a component, so that when you opt-in to non-free you *also* get
firmware? That would have been a backwards-compatible change...
I genuinely am not sure how various tools will interact with that kind
of change to have nested components, tbh. I'd rather be clean and
consistent here, and I believe Ansgar agrees. Similarly that's why the
new non-free-firmware component has no special handling to try and and override package uploads there. Special cases suck, particularly
as/when/if they stack on top of each other...
DSC 1 says we will never "require the use of a non-free component". To me, this is the major relevant issue.
Proposal A will use non-free-firmware by default, but "where possible...will include ways for users to disable this". Without the "where possible", I think this opt-out is compatible with the DSC. However, if it is not
possible to disable the non-free-firmware, then it feels like the system is, in fact, requiring it. Thus this option, as worded, feels potentially incompatible with the DSC.
d. The Secretary declares the option invalid and strikes it from the GR.
This feels heavy handed given that other remedies are available,
most notably (b), which is available even after (and if) A wins.
e. If Proposal A wins, the entire GR is declared invalid. This is the
thing I'm objecting to.
Didn't we have buster/updates for a while? Is breakage related to that
the reason why we're not doing this here?
If it does not require the explicit approval of the sponsors, yes, I
agree this text clarifies and makes better the text I proposed.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable >> >the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if >> >the user explicitly asked to do so).
That's a fair point, my text was unclear here. Let's tweak it:
"Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
default in the apt sources.list file."
Does that sound better?
Is this something you want to adopt?
Yes, I think it improves things.
I've modified the vote page with what I think you wanted to change.
Gunnar, do you also want this change in your text?
Also, if the 3:1 majority option doesn't pass but a 1:1 option that
doesn't require a supermajority does pass, that's also useful
information. (For example, I believe that would imply that such an
installer has to continue to be labeled as unofficial and not a part
of the Debian system, since I think that's the plain meaning of point
5 of the Social Contract.)
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
proposal.
I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
later more prominent.
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later. The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will
*not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free
firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include
non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that
newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be
hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
less visual priority.
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following >> lines.
The key you signed this with (A3CC9C870B9D310ABAD4CF2F51722B08FE4745A2)
is not in the debian keyring.
I'm signing this with my debian RSA key.
/Simon
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefore we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 5 which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
So, I propose the following:
=================================
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system
determines that they are required, but where possible we will include
ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel
command line etc.).
When the installer/live system is running we will provide information
to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and
non-free), and we will also store that information on the target
system such that users will be able to find it later.
The target
system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
component by default in the apt sources.list file.
Our users should
receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just
like any other installed software.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
=================================
A reason for defaulting to installing non-free firmware *by default*
is accessibility. A blind user running the installer in text-to-speech
mode may need audio firmware loaded to be able to drive the installer
at all. It's going to be very difficult for them to change this. Other
people should be able to drive the system (boot menus, etc.) to *not*
install the non-free firmware packages if desired.
We will *only* include the non-free-firmware component on our media
and on installed systems by default. As a general policy, we still do
not want to see other non-free software in use. Users may still enable
the existing non-free component if they need it.
We also need to do the work to make this happen:
* in d-i, live-boot and elsewhere to make information about firmware
available.
* add support for the non-free-firmware section in more places:
ftpsync, debian-cd and more.
and I plan to start on some of those soon.
[1] https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00130.html
[3] https://debconf22.debconf.org/talks/43-fixing-the-firmware-mess/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...
Reading this in LWN reminds me that I would don't agree with this interpretation.
I'd probably vote both the 3:1 option and the 1:1 above NOTA. This is because I believe that if enough of us agree, we should update the
Social Contract to explain how our non-free-firmware section works, and
what the images provide.
Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
[4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
This, however, strikes me as odd: I would have expected this to be part
of the proposal, or at least discussed here, not implemented out of band directly. I happen to think this is a rather questionable decision: I
would have prefered non-free to keep containing firmware images, for
example. Splitting that out into a different component will mean a lot
of our users setup will break (or at least stop receiving firmware
upgrades) unless they make manual changes to their sources.list going forward. This feels like a regression.
In general, I feel we sometimes underestimate the impact of sources.list changes to our users. I wish we would be more thoughtful about those
changes going forward. It seems like this ship has already sailed, of
course, but maybe we could be more careful about this in the future, *especially* since we were planning on having a discussion on
debian-vote about that specific issue?
Gulp, such a big jump! :) I personnally feel that we should make it
easier for people to install Debian, but I'm not quite sure I'm ready to completely ditch the free images just yet. Maybe we could just promote non-free images a little better, but I would much rather keep the free
images around. I guess that makes me a supporter of option "B", if I understand correctly, but I am known for struggling with parsing GR proposals. :)
The phrasing of the constitution here is that the 2:1 majority is required for decisions that are authorized by the powers of the Technical
Committee, and I think this sort of policy decision about how to handle non-free software is clearly outside the scope of the Technical Committee.
I can't imagine the TC being comfortable making a decision like this, or
the project being comfortable having them do it.
Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> writes:
Reading this in LWN reminds me that I would don't agree with this interpretation.
I'd probably vote both the 3:1 option and the 1:1 above NOTA. This is because I believe that if enough of us agree, we should update the
Social Contract to explain how our non-free-firmware section works, and what the images provide.
My concern is that this in proposal A:
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
and this in the Social Contract:
The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian.
fit together oddly. I think I can see the reasoning behind why folks
don't believe they conflict, but I must admit that my first reaction is
that they conflict. I think the implication of them not conflicting is
that our official installers are not part of the Debian system? Which
seems like an odd conclusion to me.
I don't really want to be the proponent of an option here, but I'm a bit worried about not addressing this head-on. So far, no one else who
supports including non-free firmware in the installer (as I do) has also indicated that this bothers them, though, which to me argues against
adding yet another option for something that maybe only I care about.
(Proposal B and proposal C both avoid this problem. I personally prefer proposal A, though.)
If it does not require the explicit approval of the sponsors, yes, I
agree this text clarifies and makes better the text I proposed.
I'm not Kurt, but I think A.1.3 applies here:
The proposer of a ballot option may amend that option provided that
none of the sponsors of that ballot option at the time the amendment
is proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If any of them
do disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.
Can you elaborate on how you support including non-free firmware in the installer *and* find the quoted paragraphs in conflict?
However, just pushing a not-well-thought-idea: Would dak, apt, or any
other bit of our infrastructure be very angry if non-free-firmware
were to be not an additional component, but a strict subset of
non-free?
That is, all packages accepted to non-free-firmware would still appear
as part of non-free (and thus, users having non-free listed would
still continue to receive updates).
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefore we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 5 which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
==================
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
Can you elaborate on how you support including non-free firmware in the
installer *and* find the quoted paragraphs in conflict?
I believe our Social Contract ideally should change. I would not want to indiscriminately add more non-free software (even drivers are iffy to me), but I think it is currently unrealistically restrictive about including firmware that is required to use most modern hardware without bugs and
other problems. I'm happy to have firmware in a separate archive area so that people who want to avoid it can, but I personally would rather treat
it differently than non-free, including considering it part of the Debian system.
One of the things that I like about Debian is that it is not gNewSense and
we take a more practical and less ideologically purist approach to free software. I would prefer that we move in a direction of even more
pragmatism than we currently have.
To be clear, I do understand that I joined a project with the Social
Contract that it has, and unless we change it, those are the rules I
follow when working on Debian. But I still have my own preferences about
the direction in which I'd like to see the project evolve.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
https://youtu.be/csdtAcf5ZMs
On 8/31/22, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
Can you elaborate on how you support including non-free firmware in the
installer *and* find the quoted paragraphs in conflict?
I believe our Social Contract ideally should change. I would not want to
indiscriminately add more non-free software (even drivers are iffy to
me),
but I think it is currently unrealistically restrictive about including
firmware that is required to use most modern hardware without bugs and
other problems. I'm happy to have firmware in a separate archive area so
that people who want to avoid it can, but I personally would rather treat
it differently than non-free, including considering it part of the Debian
system.
One of the things that I like about Debian is that it is not gNewSense
and
we take a more practical and less ideologically purist approach to free
software. I would prefer that we move in a direction of even more
pragmatism than we currently have.
To be clear, I do understand that I joined a project with the Social
Contract that it has, and unless we change it, those are the rules I
follow when working on Debian. But I still have my own preferences about
the direction in which I'd like to see the project evolve.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)
<https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
A large part of installations now run inside virtual machines and have no
use for device firmware.
Having a free-software-only installer is an easy
way for image builders to ensure that anything they build will be redistributable.
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
A large part of installations now run inside virtual machines and have no use for device firmware.
yes.
Having a free-software-only installer is an easy
way for image builders to ensure that anything they build will be redistributable.
no. if you build images, you don't use d-i but fai, debuerreotype, mmedebstrap
debootstrap or your-custom-script-being-used-since-1997 or something else, but
hardly anyone uses d-i for this use-case.
https://youtu.be/csdtAcf5ZMs
On 8/31/22, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
Can you elaborate on how you support including non-free firmware in the
installer *and* find the quoted paragraphs in conflict?
I believe our Social Contract ideally should change. I would not want to
indiscriminately add more non-free software (even drivers are iffy to
me),
but I think it is currently unrealistically restrictive about including
firmware that is required to use most modern hardware without bugs and
other problems. I'm happy to have firmware in a separate archive area so
that people who want to avoid it can, but I personally would rather treat
it differently than non-free, including considering it part of the Debian
system.
One of the things that I like about Debian is that it is not gNewSense
and
we take a more practical and less ideologically purist approach to free
software. I would prefer that we move in a direction of even more
pragmatism than we currently have.
To be clear, I do understand that I joined a project with the Social
Contract that it has, and unless we change it, those are the rules I
follow when working on Debian. But I still have my own preferences about
the direction in which I'd like to see the project evolve.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)
<https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
I like to discussion about anything related to this, so that I can at
least get an idea what the consensus is.
DSC 1 and DSC 5 have some implications about "the Debian system" vis-a-vis non-free, but the plan here is to keep the firmware in a separate non-free-firmware analogous to non-free. That seems fine to me.
DSC 1 says we will never "require the use of a non-free component". To me, this is the major relevant issue.
Proposals B and C offer users the explicit choice of media. That feels clearly compatible with the DSC, as users are not required to use non-free bits.
Proposal A will use non-free-firmware by default, but "where possible...will include ways for users to disable this". Without the "where possible", I think this opt-out is compatible with the DSC. However, if it is not
possible to disable the non-free-firmware, then it feels like the system is, in fact, requiring it. Thus this option, as worded, feels potentially incompatible with the DSC.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following lines.
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
I can interprete that as having non-free available and installed by default is acceptable, as long as there is a way not to use the non-free part.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §5 which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
As you indicate yourself, this is an interpretation of the SC. I would
really prefer that such a question was not open to interpretation and
that the SC was changed to make it more clear what we mean.
I don't actually understand what this part of your text is saying. Are
you saying that an image with non-free software on it is non-official
because it's not part of the Debian system? That is not something I read
in that text.
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following lines.
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 5 which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
I like to discussion about anything related to this, so that I can at least get an idea what the consensus is.
DSC 1 and DSC 5 have some implications about "the Debian system" vis-a-vis non-free, but the plan here is to keep the firmware in a separate non-free-firmware analogous to non-free. That seems fine to me.
DSC 1 says we will never "require the use of a non-free component". To me, this is the major relevant issue.
Proposals B and C offer users the explicit choice of media. That feels clearly compatible with the DSC, as users are not required to use non-free bits.
Proposal A will use non-free-firmware by default, but "where possible...will
include ways for users to disable this". Without the "where possible", I think this opt-out is compatible with the DSC. However, if it is not possible to disable the non-free-firmware, then it feels like the system is,
in fact, requiring it. Thus this option, as worded, feels potentially incompatible with the DSC.
It that it says "at boot". That seems to imply that it will get
installed, but it might not get used, which might at least surprise
some people. But maybe that's only for the live images.
Note that the SC only says: "require the use of a non-free component".
This can be interpreted as having it installed is not a problem as
long as it's not used.
I think there are people that want to use the official image but don't
want anything non-free installed, nor want it in the sources.list file.
So they might want to have an installer that supports that.
So I think I have to agree that the "where possible" is probably not compatible with the SC. I think it should be more explicit that it will
be possible to disable the use of non-free firmware.
SC #5 says that contrib and non-free is not part of the Debian system.
But talks about CDs that can include such packages. It seems that we
find it acceptable that installation and live media contains non-free software. But clearly there are people who don't agree with this.
Other questions I still have:
- Can a GR overrule the SC without explicitly saysing so, and does it
then need a 3:1 super majority? Currently I think it should explicitly
change the SC.
- Is opt-out good enough, or does it need to be opt-in?
- Does SC #5 need to be changes since we're adding a non-free-firmware
section?
I will likely say that option A is not compatible with the SC and
invalid. Please either change the text, or try to convince me otherwise.
I did not see any arguments of why it would not conflict.
Hi Steve,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:14:53PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
I like to discussion about anything related to this, so that I can at least get an idea what the consensus is.
DSC 1 and DSC 5 have some implications about "the Debian system" vis-a-vis
non-free, but the plan here is to keep the firmware in a separate non-free-firmware analogous to non-free. That seems fine to me.
DSC 1 says we will never "require the use of a non-free component". To me,
this is the major relevant issue.
Proposals B and C offer users the explicit choice of media. That feels clearly compatible with the DSC, as users are not required to use non-free
bits.
Proposal A will use non-free-firmware by default, but "where possible...will
include ways for users to disable this". Without the "where possible", I think this opt-out is compatible with the DSC. However, if it is not possible to disable the non-free-firmware, then it feels like the system is,
in fact, requiring it. Thus this option, as worded, feels potentially incompatible with the DSC.
It that it says "at boot". That seems to imply that it will get
installed, but it might not get used, which might at least surprise
some people. But maybe that's only for the live images.
Note that the SC only says: "require the use of a non-free component".
This can be interpreted as having it installed is not a problem as
long as it's not used.
I think there are people that want to use the official image but don't
want anything non-free installed, nor want it in the sources.list file.
So they might want to have an installer that supports that.
So I think I have to agree that the "where possible" is probably not compatible with the SC. I think it should be more explicit that it will
be possible to disable the use of non-free firmware.
SC #5 says that contrib and non-free is not part of the Debian system.
But talks about CDs that can include such packages. It seems that we
find it acceptable that installation and live media contains non-free software. But clearly there are people who don't agree with this.
Other questions I still have:
- Can a GR overrule the SC without explicitly saysing so, and does it
then need a 3:1 super majority? Currently I think it should explicitly
change the SC.
- Is opt-out good enough, or does it need to be opt-in?
- Does SC #5 need to be changes since we're adding a non-free-firmware
section?
I will likely say that option A is not compatible with the SC and
invalid. Please either change the text, or try to convince me otherwise.
I did not see any arguments of why it would not conflict.
I think that "where possible" is aimed towards that there might be systems that
won't boot (properly) anymore, or possibly the system would not be usable for some people (e.g people requiring TTS), so it could be hard for them to actually disable them.
Disabling _might_ be even impossible during boot, if those bits are required so
early in the boot process that there is no way to intervene. (e.g Raspberry Pi)
Steve, to fix the concerns by Kurt, would you accept some changes
- to remove the words "where possible"
- and change the next sentence to:
"When the installer/live system is running we will provide
informationa to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both
free and non-free) and offer to abort the installation if non-free
firmare has been loaded. And we will also …"
(please rephrase as you see appropiate; English is not my native
language and I might have missed subtlities in my wording…)
My rationale for the second sentence is:
(I first had this version in mind, to be added to the sentence that has
the "where possible: I quote that now because I believe that makes it
clearer what I have in mind, but I believe the proposoal above is more practical:
"Where disabling the firmware is not possible or feasible, (e.g it is
required to boot the system/installer, required by active accessiblity
features, etc), we will inform the user about this, and offer to abort
the installation.")
- if there is a system that won't work without firemware, there won't be
a usable free installer for them, so for people who care, the only
option will be not using that system, so we should give them this
option as well at all. At that point, everything happended in RAM, so
aborting the installation will return to the previous state of the
device, without any permanent modifications.
- people might not be able to make this decission before they have
actually loaded firmware. IIUIC for TTS systems, some AMD APU won't
display *anything* without firmware… So a chicken-egg problem; with the
second sentence they'll explicitly get a "you do not have to…" option.
I changed my original sentence, because I'm not sure if we indeed can *always*
*correctly* determine if a specific firmware is required in the spirit of that
sentence.
Kurt: Would something like my proposal be able to fix your concerns?
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 19:57 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
My reading of that is that the FSF RYF program does not meet the needs
of people who do not care about having a fully free software system.
My reading of it was the opposite, that the FSF RYF program doesn't
take into account the potential for reverse engineering of firmware
Thus, a possible precursor to an interpretive GR is that some person/group (e.g. ftpmaster, Project Leader, TC, Secretary[1]) makes the interpretive decision.
If someone can make the decision, then they can be overruled[2][3] by the Developers through a GR. I don't think a blanket prohibition on Foundation Document-interpreting GRs makes sense in that context. It doesn't seem correct that Developers somehow lose their power to overrule if the issue involves interpretation of a Foundation Document.
[1] I understand that your (the Secretary's) current position is that you do not have the power to interpret Foundation Documents. I contend that you implicitly do, at least insofar as such an interpretation is required to fulfill one of your explicit duties. If you do not, then it seems the
Project Leader would, through a combination of 5.1.3 (requires urgent
action) and/or 5.1.4 (noone else has responsibility).
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
I like to discussion about anything related to this, so that I can at
least get an idea what the consensus is.
DSC 1 and DSC 5 have some implications about "the Debian system" vis-a-vis >> non-free, but the plan here is to keep the firmware in a separate
non-free-firmware analogous to non-free. That seems fine to me.
DSC 1 says we will never "require the use of a non-free component". To me, >> this is the major relevant issue.
Proposals B and C offer users the explicit choice of media. That feels
clearly compatible with the DSC, as users are not required to use non-free >> bits.
Proposal A will use non-free-firmware by default, but "where possible...will >> include ways for users to disable this". Without the "where possible", I
think this opt-out is compatible with the DSC. However, if it is not
possible to disable the non-free-firmware, then it feels like the system is, >> in fact, requiring it. Thus this option, as worded, feels potentially
incompatible with the DSC.
It that it says "at boot". That seems to imply that it will get
installed, but it might not get used, which might at least surprise
some people. But maybe that's only for the live images.
Note that the SC only says: "require the use of a non-free component".
This can be interpreted as having it installed is not a problem as
long as it's not used.
I think there are people that want to use the official image but don't
want anything non-free installed, nor want it in the sources.list file.
So they might want to have an installer that supports that.
So I think I have to agree that the "where possible" is probably not >compatible with the SC. I think it should be more explicit that it will
be possible to disable the use of non-free firmware.
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 08:00:48PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
[1] I understand that your (the Secretary's) current position is that you do >> not have the power to interpret Foundation Documents. I contend that you
implicitly do, at least insofar as such an interpretation is required to
fulfill one of your explicit duties. If you do not, then it seems the
Project Leader would, through a combination of 5.1.3 (requires urgent
action) and/or 5.1.4 (noone else has responsibility).
As part of this GR, I'm just trying to make sure you can interpret the
SC in a consistent way that matches the ballot option.
Thank you for discussion this, I wish more people would participate in
this.
As you indicate yourself, this is an interpretation of the SC. I would
really prefer that such a question was not open to interpretation and
that the SC was changed to make it more clear what we mean.
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short, >keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those >users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free >installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short, >keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those
users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free >installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already
started*, where we're going to move firmware things to
non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or non-free-firmware sections" in your text.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Armed with "Valor": "Centurion" represents quality of Discipline,
Honor, Integrity and Loyalty. Now you don't have to be a Caesar to
concord the digital world while feeling safe and proud.
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short, >> >keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping thoseI hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/ >> >
users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free >> >installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that
smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already
started*, where we're going to move firmware things to
non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or
non-free-firmware sections" in your text.
I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such
new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the >started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free" >because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today.
Does this cover your concern?
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short, >keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those
users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free
installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already
started*, where we're going to move firmware things to
non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or non-free-firmware sections" in your text.
I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such
new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the
started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free" because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short, keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those users that need non-free firmware
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short, >> >keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those
users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free
installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that >> >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already
started*, where we're going to move firmware things to
non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or
non-free-firmware sections" in your text.
I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such
new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the
started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free" >because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today.
Does this cover your concern?
No, it doesn't.
Your words may cover where those packages are *today*,
but they most likely will *not* be in "non-free" when we come to make
the changes. "non-free-firmware" != "non-free".
Please tweak your
wording to be more flexible and cover what we're aiming to do.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:not
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones. >> >
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short,
keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those
users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free
installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already started*, where we're going to move firmware things to
non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or non-free-firmware sections" in your text.
I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such
new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the
started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free" because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today.
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed.
I suggest you
just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
archive".
Kurt
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:25:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
No, it doesn't.
Your words may cover where those packages are *today*,
Exactly.
but they most likely will *not* be in "non-free" when we come to make
the changes. "non-free-firmware" != "non-free".
I understood that part.
Please tweak your
wording to be more flexible and cover what we're aiming to do.
I think we have a different view on which proposal is the most flexible. And I >understand that you want my proposal to cover what you are aiming at.
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones. >> >
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short,
keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those
users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free
installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that
smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already started*, where we're going to move firmware things to non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or non-free-firmware sections" in your text.
I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such
new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the
started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free"
because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today.
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks atnot
that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed.
He wants "non-free-firmware section" mentioned in proposal C, see above.
I suggest you
just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
archive".
That would indeed leave out the existing section name. I'll consider it.
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones. >> >
=================================
Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short,
keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those
users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free
installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already started*, where we're going to move firmware things to
non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or non-free-firmware sections" in your text.
I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such
new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the
started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free" because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today.
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
archive".
Kurt
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks ats/now/not/
that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
archive".
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks ats/now/not/
that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
archive".
Hi Kurt,
Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive available
for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
The modification:
Old: containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian archive
New: containing non-free software from the Debian archive
The old phrase was misunderstood as if this proposal would be opposing the addition of a new section named non-free-firmware. The new phrase better reflects that software in section non-free-firmware is also covered.
Then why not simply mention section non-free-firmware? Well, this proposal is meant to be more future proof. This proposal is applicable to an installer using the non-free-firmware section, and also to the existing non-free installer. And to any future designs of non-free installers.
My subjective comparison of the available proposals so far:
- Proposal A replaces the free installer by one containing non-free firmware. - Proposal B gives the free installer less visibility than the non-free one. - Proposal C keeps the free installer and no longer hides the non-free ones. - Proposal D would be equivalent to NOTA in my understanding.
Proposal C could use some more seconding. If you find that proposal C is a valid option on the ballot (regardless of what you'll later vote for), then you're most welcome to add your seconding.
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you >s/now/not/
just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
archive".
Hi Kurt,
Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images >and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive available
for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed >before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive available
for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive available
for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with >> non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system
As you indicate yourself, this is an interpretation of the SC. I would really prefer that such a question was not open to interpretation and
that the SC was changed to make it more clear what we mean.
I don't actually understand what this part of your text is saying. Are
you saying that an image with non-free software on it is non-official because it's not part of the Debian system? That is not something I read
in that text.
I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the discussion. It seems easier to talk about what is considered part of
the Debian system or not: the foundation documents imply (to me) that anything not following DFSG is not part of Debian. Therefor, an
installer that includes non-free content would not be part of Debian.
That does not prevent the project from distributing it, we do that today
and we distribute non-free/contrib today too without trouble.
For me it helps to think that what the Debian project ships is a
superset of what is considered to be the Debian system.
The Debian system is maintained and distributed as a collection of packages. The main archive area forms the Debian distribution.
The Debian archive software uses the term “component” internally and
in the Release file format to refer to the division of an archive. The
Debian Social Contract simply refers to “areas.” This document uses terminology similar to the Social Contract.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following
lines.
==================
We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 1
which says:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
I can interprete that as having non-free available and installed by default is acceptable, as long as there is a way not to use the non-free part.
We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract 5
which says:
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists).
Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with
non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
As you indicate yourself, this is an interpretation of the SC. I would
really prefer that such a question was not open to interpretation and
that the SC was changed to make it more clear what we mean.
I don't actually understand what this part of your text is saying. Are
you saying that an image with non-free software on it is non-official
because it's not part of the Debian system? That is not something I read
in that text.
I would also like to point out that the Secretary has the power to adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution, but
not about the foundation documents.
Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive available
for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the discussion.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
discussion.
I had assumed "official" was in more common usage. It seems like that's >false. Since the cloud team uses that term, here's a bit of detail I
can offer.
The best doc that I know of is here:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/OfficialImages
This tracks Steve's usage from earlier in the thread. The cloud team
uses it like this too --- we probably got it from him, back when he was
on the team. We also used to have DSA members on the team who seemed
keen on the term.
So while it doesn't appear in any foundational document, it does have >traction amongst folks that are affected by these issues.
Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
=================================
The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive available
for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
=================================
The modification:
Old: containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian archive
New: containing non-free software from the Debian archive
The old phrase was misunderstood as if this proposal would be opposing the addition of a new section named non-free-firmware. The new phrase better reflects that software in section non-free-firmware is also covered.
Then why not simply mention section non-free-firmware? Well, this proposal is meant to be more future proof. This proposal is applicable to an installer using the non-free-firmware section, and also to the existing non-free installer. And to any future designs of non-free installers.
My subjective comparison of the available proposals so far:
- Proposal A replaces the free installer by one containing non-free firmware. - Proposal B gives the free installer less visibility than the non-free one. - Proposal C keeps the free installer and no longer hides the non-free ones. - Proposal D would be equivalent to NOTA in my understanding.
On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 21:49 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be
allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on it?
and if so, how/where should we be allowed to mention/document/promote
the images containing non-free firmware?
Currently the existing images containing non-free firmware are
mentioned on the download page linked from the website front page,
but are labelled "unofficial" and in the "Other Installers" section.
https://www.debian.org/download
The longer older download pages similarly labels the non-free firmware
images as "unofficial" and mention them at the very end of the page.
https://www.debian.org/distrib/
The even older Debian CD page doesn't mention non-free firmware at all.
https://www.debian.org/CD/
The Debian installation guide has sections on non-free firmware, the
first one seems to be outdated as it seems to imply the firmware images
are not possible.
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch02s02.en.html https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch06s04.en.html
* Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer? tl;dr: No...
* Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/683a7c0e69b081aae8c46bd4027bf7537475624a.camel@debian.org
tl;dr: No
Linking to the non-free installer from the Debian front page seems...
acceptable (or at least not in direct conflict with the social
contract), but depending on how it is executed may be poor judgement and would give a strange impression of what Debian is about.
So with all these words, my belief is that publications of non-free installers are already acceptable under the social contract as long as
they don't claim to be part of the Debian system, and that it isn't the
case that the non-free installer is the only installer available.
Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates,
except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:28 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
* Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?...
tl;dr: No
* Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/683a7c0e69b081aae8c46bd4027bf7537475624a.camel@debian.org
tl;dr: No
Linking to the non-free installer from the Debian front page seems...
acceptable (or at least not in direct conflict with the social
contract), but depending on how it is executed may be poor judgement and
would give a strange impression of what Debian is about.
So with all these words, my belief is that publications of non-free
installers are already acceptable under the social contract as long as
they don't claim to be part of the Debian system, and that it isn't the
case that the non-free installer is the only installer available.
Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates,
except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:06:35 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,392 |