The Project Leader has extended the discussion period (at least the
maximum, maybe it's ambiguous on an extension of the minimum, but that
is likely moot) by 7 days. By my reading of the constitution, this only extends the possible maximum. To actually get that time, I believe we
need a new option or an amendment of an existing one. And that needs to happen today.
Seconded.
One suggestion: if we modify the Social Contract then we can as well
include "non-free-firmware" explicitly as well, i.e., replace
We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for
these works.
by
We have created "contrib", "non-free-firmware" and "non-free"
areas in our archive for these works.
Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1 majority.
The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
identical to the current version in all respects except that it adds the following sentence to the end of point 5:
The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not
part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that
requires such firmware.
The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the
day:
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. 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. 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.
Between one thing and another I've not been tracking the timeline of this vote and I'm worried we may be out of time for new ballot options and possibly extensions.
(As promised in the previous vote for changing the timing of GRs, I've
been watching the timing closely and the last couple have felt rushed.
When there's a quiet period, I'm considering proposing a small
constitutional amendment to relax the timelines a bit based on that experience. But we can discuss that separately.)
If there is time left, though, I'm considering proposing the following
option based on my earlier message, just so that there's something on the ballot that explicitly modifies the Social Contract to allow for non-free firmware, in case people want that for clarity.
I should stress that I'm not involved in this part of Debian directly and
am not a great choice for a proponent, so I'd be happy if someone else
took that over, but it does feel to me like it would be good to have this explicitly on the ballot.
Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1 majority.
The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
identical to the current version in all respects except that it adds the following sentence to the end of point 5:
The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not
part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that
requires such firmware.
The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the
day:
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. 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. 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.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Seconded.
Do users have the right to redistribute the installer?
Between one thing and another I've not been tracking the timeline of this >vote and I'm worried we may be out of time for new ballot options and >possibly extensions.
(As promised in the previous vote for changing the timing of GRs, I've
been watching the timing closely and the last couple have felt rushed.
When there's a quiet period, I'm considering proposing a small
constitutional amendment to relax the timelines a bit based on that >experience. But we can discuss that separately.)
If there is time left, though, I'm considering proposing the following
option based on my earlier message, just so that there's something on the >ballot that explicitly modifies the Social Contract to allow for non-free >firmware, in case people want that for clarity.
I should stress that I'm not involved in this part of Debian directly and
am not a great choice for a proponent, so I'd be happy if someone else
took that over, but it does feel to me like it would be good to have this >explicitly on the ballot.
Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation >document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1 >majority.
The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
identical to the current version in all respects except that it adds the >following sentence to the end of point 5:
The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not
part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that
requires such firmware.
The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the
day:
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. 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. 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 Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> writes:
One suggestion: if we modify the Social Contract then we can as well
include "non-free-firmware" explicitly as well, i.e., replace
We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for
these works.
by
We have created "contrib", "non-free-firmware" and "non-free"
areas in our archive for these works.
I considered doing this, but then I decided against it because I think
the current wording implicitly allows for there being multiple non-free
areas. I know that's not how we're currently reading it, and probably
not how it was intended, but one can interpret the same sentence as
saying there is one or more contrib area and one or more non-free area.
I like that a little better since it avoids having to update a
foundation document for what's essentially bookkeeping. Suppose, for
example, that we want to split out some other bit of non-free in the
future for some non-SC-related reason (contrib or non-free debug
symbols or whatever). It feels weird to have to amend the SC just to
add the new name to a list.
Right. Maybe it might be helpful to tweak the wording the *other* way
then, something like:
We have created extra areas in our archive for these works.
so we don't specify the areas explicitly? Just a thought...
I agree that from a practical standpoint, this is unlikely to be a
problem. The new language for the DSC also solves the conflict, but it
is a regression for user -- before, anything "official" could always be redistributed because it had to fulfill the DFSG in order to be
considered.
The exception this carves out allows us to call the new installer
"official", but does not give users any guarantees beyond the old DSC#5, which is basically "you have to check all the licenses for yourself."
We might want to have a commitment that goes further than that,
e.g. have a minimum set of criteria for firmware as well, as a service
to users.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1 majority.
The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
identical to the current version in all respects except that it adds the following sentence to the end of point 5:
The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not
part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that
requires such firmware.
The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
identical to the current version in all respects except that the point 5 reads as follows:
5. 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", "non-free" and "non-free-firmware" 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 installation media providers to read the licenses of the
packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the
packages on their installation medias. 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). The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise
not part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware tha
requires such firmware.
Thanks for that proposal Russ!
While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
What about this (which adds the non-free-firmware area, replaces "CD manufacturers" with "installation media providers", replaces "on their
CD" with "on their installation media":
The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
identical to the current version in all respects except that the point 5
reads as follows:
5. 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", "non-free" and "non-free-firmware" 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 installation media providers to read the licenses of the
packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the
packages on their installation medias. 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). The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise >> not part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware tha >> requires such firmware.
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:
Thanks for that proposal Russ!
While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
[...]
What about this (which adds the non-free-firmware area, replaces "CD manufacturers" with "installation media providers", replaces "on their
CD" with "on their installation media":
The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
identical to the current version in all respects except that the point 5 >>
reads as follows:
5. 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", "non-free" and "non-free-firmware" 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 installation media providers to read the licenses of the
packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the
packages on their installation medias. 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). The Debian official media may include firmware that is
otherwise
not part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware
tha
requires such firmware.
With Steve's change and a few other tweaks to try to make this a bit more concise:
5. 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 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 distributors of Debian
to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if
they can distribute the packages on their media. 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). The Debian official media may
include firmware that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to
enable use of Debian with hardware tha requires such firmware.
I do think this sounds more up-to-date, and getting rid of "CDs" does feel like an overdue edit. This would also resolve how to phrase the ballot option (although someone's going to ask for a diff). What does everyone
else think about this?
Going *way* out on a limb (and to be honest I'm leaning hard against proposing this because I think this level of change would require more
than a week's worth of discussion), I think something like this that
reorders and trims the section down would be even better:
5. 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 areas in our archive for these works. These packages have
been configured for use with Debian and we provide some
infrastructure for them (such as our bug tracking system and mailing
lists), but they are not part of the Debian system. We encourage
distributors of Debian to read the licenses of the packages in these
areas and determine if they can distribute these packages on their
media. The Debian official media may include firmware from these
areas that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to enable use
of Debian with hardware that requires such firmware.
But as mentioned, I think this is probably too big of a change for this
point in the process. (I'll still throw it out there, though, in case there's overwhelming sentiment the other way.)
Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:
While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
Going *way* out on a limb (and to be honest I'm leaning hard against proposing this because I think this level of change would require more
than a week's worth of discussion)
5. 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 areas in our archive for these works. These packages have
been configured for use with Debian and we provide some
infrastructure for them (such as our bug tracking system and mailing
lists), but they are not part of the Debian system. We encourage
distributors of Debian to read the licenses of the packages in these
areas and determine if they can distribute these packages on their
media. The Debian official media may include firmware from these
areas that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to enable use
of Debian with hardware that requires such firmware.
As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very
simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The "statement of the day" is a nice addition, but can risk being nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely second a ballot option that would propose just this.
From my sparse reading of the discussion so far, it now seems clear that the SC needs amending; not doing so and finding convoluted ways to interpret its actual version risks creating more confusion and misunderstandings than it solves.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:
While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about aGoing *way* out on a limb (and to be honest I'm leaning hard against
more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
proposing this because I think this level of change would require more
than a week's worth of discussion)
5. 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 areas in our archive for these works. These packages have
been configured for use with Debian and we provide some
infrastructure for them (such as our bug tracking system and mailing >> > lists), but they are not part of the Debian system. We encourage
distributors of Debian to read the licenses of the packages in these >> > areas and determine if they can distribute these packages on their
media. The Debian official media may include firmware from these
areas that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to enable use >> > of Debian with hardware that requires such firmware.
As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very
simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The "statement of the >> day" is a nice addition, but can risk being nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely >> second a ballot option that would propose just this.
In that spirit, some more wording suggestions and justification below.
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
archive areas.
But as mentioned, I think this is probably too big of a change for this
point in the process. (I'll still throw it out there, though, in case
there's overwhelming sentiment the other way.)
I disagree; this looks precisely like the change I think we should be making.
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
archive areas.
Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1 majority.
The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
identical to the current version in all respects except that it adds the following sentence to the end of point 5:
The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not
part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that
requires such firmware.
The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the
day:
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. 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. 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.
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
Thanks, I prefer this approach over Steve's initial proposal: it solves
the problem that we would override a foundational document with a GR
without the required 3:1 majority.
I'm worried that if we publish only non-free installers, people will
rightly be quite confused what the Debian project thinks about the
meaning of the DSC/DFSG. I would personally believe that publishing
non-free content as part of the Debian system will violate DSC/DFSG even
if Steve's GR passed and were implemented: a 1:1 GR should not be
sufficient to override the meaning of a foundational document.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
Like Steve's variant triggered Gunnar's modification to allow for both
free and non-free installers to be published concurrently, what do you
think about:
1) Having two variants of your text -- one that replaces the free
installer with a new non-free installer, and one that says we will
publish both free and non-free installers?
2) Remove the paragraph, effectively making your proposal orthogonal
to the decision which images are published? This could be up to the
individual developers to decide. Some people may want to work on a
free installer, and some people may want to work on a non-free
installer, and there doesn't necessarily have to be a conflict between
those two interests.
I believe the Debian project is permitted to publish non-free installers under the current DSC/DFSG (which it actually is doing today; just
hidden), but according to the DSC it is not part of the Debian system.
/Simon
More hardware is now shipped without soldered firmware.The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
given that the actual hardware is non-free.
What has changed making us fear Debian's relevancy,
and is compromising on our ideals the best way to deal with that?We are already compromising on our ideals, see SC4, SC5 and what does FSF
I recall the same situation with hardware requiring non-free softwareIt wasn't the same, but sure, keeping usability on the 1995 level is
since I started with computers and free software back in the mid 1990's.
The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
given that the actual hardware is non-free.
Again, this assumes the firmware problems only exist when the saidAs-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very
simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.
It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a pretty strong word here.
It is a marked step back from our principles and will be perceived as such, and it will also be a disservice to our users if we don't at the same time start lobbying harder for free, user-controlled computing infrastructure, because ultimately the future of free software hinges on whether there can
be another generation of tinkerers, or if they will be locked out and relegated to working for free to add value to proprietary offerings.
Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> writes:
The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
given that the actual hardware is non-free.
What has changed making us fear Debian's relevancy, and is compromising
on our ideals the best way to deal with that?
I recall the same situation with hardware requiring non-free software
since I started with computers and free software back in the mid 1990's.
The challenge will continue be the same as long as there is proprietary >software. The amount of hardware compatible with free software is >enourmously larger today than it was back then. I don't see that Debian
or other free software projects having become less relevant over the
years. In fact, I perceive sticking to these principles (while offering
high quality products and processes) has been instrumental to shift the >proprietary software industry our way. People will continue to talk bad >about free software, and promote proprietary software, but I am hoping
Debian will be a factor against that.
I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
"""
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages are not formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes and security updates depend
entirely on their upstream developers. We provide the enabling
infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate archive areas. We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether they can distribute it on their media or products.
"""
An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. It's not
like we provide the non-free archives and it's *wink* *wink* kind of
official because Debian people provide it but it's not, instead it's the
case that everything that makes Debian great really doesn't apply to
these packages.
Also, I think a change like this is fine for this GR, but if it
complicates things, then I think it's also worth while to tackle some
finer points of the SC/DFSG in a follow-up GR really soon.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be
one very simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The
"statement of the day" is a nice addition, but can risk being
nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely second a ballot option that would
propose just this.
In that spirit, some more wording suggestions and justification below.
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
archive areas.
That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks!
Such packages are not formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes...
and security updates depend entirely on their upstream developers.
An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. It's not
like we provide the non-free archives and it's *wink* *wink* kind of official because Debian people provide it but it's not, instead it's the case that everything that makes Debian great really doesn't apply to
these packages.
We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether
they can distribute it on their media or products.
With your proposal, Debian 'main' would still consists of free content,So just like now.
but to practically install and run any of it, we and our users would
have to download non-free content.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> writes:
The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
given that the actual hardware is non-free.
What has changed making us fear Debian's relevancy, and is compromising
on our ideals the best way to deal with that?
I recall the same situation with hardware requiring non-free software
since I started with computers and free software back in the mid 1990's. >>The challenge will continue be the same as long as there is proprietary >>software. The amount of hardware compatible with free software is >>enourmously larger today than it was back then. I don't see that Debian
or other free software projects having become less relevant over the
years. In fact, I perceive sticking to these principles (while offering >>high quality products and processes) has been instrumental to shift the >>proprietary software industry our way. People will continue to talk bad >>about free software, and promote proprietary software, but I am hoping >>Debian will be a factor against that.
You're missing the point. Debian will *still* be producing Free
Software. We're talking about enabling people to *use* that Free
Software on the computers they already *have*, not some idealised Free Software compatible computers that barely exist today. It's just like
the FSF providing support to users wanting to run software on top of proprietary OSes back in the day.
If new users cannot sensibly install and use our Free Software on the computers they have, they'll go elsewhere. We won't get the
opportunity to educate them about the benefits of Debian and Free
Software if they've already discarded our installation media and moved
on. We don't get new users, we don't get new developers.
None of us *like* this situation, but we have a pragmatic solution.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
With your proposal, Debian 'main' would still consists of free content,So just like now.
but to practically install and run any of it, we and our users would
have to download non-free content.
On 2022/09/08 11:27, Phil Morrell wrote:
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
archive areas.
bug fixes and security updates depend entirely on their upstream developers
We
encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether they can distribute it on their media or products.
An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. It's not like we provide the non-free archives and it's *wink* *wink* kind of official
because Debian people provide it but it's not, instead it's the case that everything that makes Debian great really doesn't apply to these packages.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
bug fixes and security updates depend entirely on their upstream developers
This is definitely not *universally true*, think of e.g. GFDL invariants
or packages that are "merely" non-commercial. Debian package maintainers
can make absolutely any technical improvements they wish to these
packages, the only thing they can't do is change the license to be
DFSG-free. There's probably less motivation to work on non-free
software, and there may not even be any remaining upstream, but I assume
you were primarily thinking of non-free-firmware when drafting this
phrase.
We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages to
carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether they
can distribute it on their media or products.
I deliberately removed mention of software vendors and their media as
our Social Contract wouldn't bind them anyway. #5 should be relevant for
all our users, third party redistributors are just a subset.
It'd be nice having a fourth sentence that is a bit more negatively
worded to put people off non-free where feasible. How about:
We encourage careful review of the licensing for your use-case and
how they put limits on our packaging efforts.
Disclaimer: I'm not a DD (yet) so cannot formally propose any of this
and please take with a lump of salt.
No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether
they can distribute it on their media or products.
An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some practical consequences of redistributing non-free software.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
How about:
We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" <jcc@debian.org> writes:
I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
I disagree strongly on this.
We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're making to our users, and then stop. Specifically, we should avoid
including text that attempts to tell them what they need to do, such as:
We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether
they can distribute it on their media or products.
If you really think we need to say this to downstream consumers / distributors of our work, I'm sure we can find a way to do that. But
the Social Contract is the wrong place. It is, and must remain, an articulation of our values and the associated commitments we're making
to our users. The fewer words it must contain to achieve those
objectives, the better.
We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
If we were to include any non-free software/firmware on something that's called official Debian installer media that is said to conform to our standards
We probably do need to say something about how you need to review the licenses for non-free software before using or distributing it. This is
true for users as well.
How about:
We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're making to our users, and then stop.
On 2022/09/09 18:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
Looks good to me. It summarizes the gist of the issue very concisely without using any loaded terms.
-Jonathan
If there is time left, though, I'm considering proposing the following
option based on my earlier message, just so that there's something on the ballot that explicitly modifies the Social Contract to allow for non-free firmware, in case people want that for clarity.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Syria are excluded by most non-free licenses.
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
So, just to see if I understand, the part that you're specifically
objecting to is the willingness of the installer to load non-free firmware before starting to prompt the user for their preferences, combined with
the lack of an installer that has no non-free firmware in it?
My understanding of the proposal is that the point of loading firmware as needed is to get graphics and sound working early for accessibility
reasons. I personally do consider that more important than ensuring that
no non-free software is ever used, but I can certainly see why this would
be a point of principled disagreement. Is that the part that you're objecting to? Or is it the mere presence of non-free software in the installer image, even if you're prompted before any of it is used? Or something else?
There are certainly arguments in favor of maintaining an entirely
DFSG-free installer. I don't think anyone would deny that; I think the
only dispute there is over whether the benefits of having that installer around exceed the costs of maintaining it and explaining to users which
one to pick. (And like any other work tradeoff, presumably the tradeoff would look differently the more people volunteer to help.)
No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
appears solved or possible to solve.
On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
appears solved or possible to solve.
As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are directed by the
Debian website to download the free installer, they try it out, find it doesn't work on their hardware and then abandon Debian in favour of
other distros, or ask questions about it to the Debian support channels
or the Debian teams involved in the image creation/distribution. They
always get the non-free installer eventually, but we have wasted their
time and ours by directing them to the free installer by default.
Since the hardware most users use causes the first problem, the people fielding these support requests see that the free installer is in most
cases not useful and therefore want to stop building or working on it.
My earlier proposal that solves these issues without a GR or SC change:
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/683a7c0e69b081aae8c46bd4027bf7537475624a.camel@debian.org
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
Since the hardware most users use causes the first problem, the people fielding these support requests see that the free installer is in most cases not useful and therefore want to stop building or working on it.
The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone else's choices and taking on the responsibility solve the consequences
of that choice seems misguided to me.
It makes it harder for users to
experience the frustration of such hardware themselves.
I disagree they
always get the non-free installer eventually: some end up learning about
the problem and chose better hardware.
If Debian takes on itself to solve the problems with non-free
hardware, I think we are in more difficult position to ask for a
change.
On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
appears solved or possible to solve.
As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are directed by the
Debian website to download the free installer, they try it out, find it doesn't work on their hardware and then abandon Debian in favour of
other distros, or ask questions about it to the Debian support channels
or the Debian teams involved in the image creation/distribution. They
always get the non-free installer eventually, but we have wasted their
time and ours by directing them to the free installer by default.
Since the hardware most users use causes the first problem, the people fielding these support requests see that the free installer is in most
cases not useful and therefore want to stop building or working on it.
Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
appears solved or possible to solve.
As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are directed by the
Debian website to download the free installer, they try it out, find it doesn't work on their hardware and then abandon Debian in favour of
other distros, or ask questions about it to the Debian support channels
or the Debian teams involved in the image creation/distribution. They always get the non-free installer eventually, but we have wasted their
time and ours by directing them to the free installer by default.
Since the hardware most users use causes the first problem, the people fielding these support requests see that the free installer is in most cases not useful and therefore want to stop building or working on it.
The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
else's choices and taking on the responsibility solve the consequences
of that choice seems misguided to me. It makes it harder for users to experience the frustration of such hardware themselves.
I disagree they
always get the non-free installer eventually: some end up learning about
the problem and chose better hardware. Some end up reverse engineering
their hardware, and contributing to a free solution. Some dislike other distributions taking a less rigid stance on non-free works, and will
come up with work-arounds to get Debian to work on the hardware. If
Debian takes on itself to solve the problems with non-free hardware, I
think we are in more difficult position to ask for a change.
Is this helping our users or does it help the free software cause if those users just go somewhere else and asscociate Debian with "broken"?
Those are lost users, and they will never learn and then care about their missing freedoms.
What I'm specifically objecting to is that if Steve's proposal were implemented I believe the result would violate our social contract that
the Debian system is 100% free.
Another problem is the ability to distribute the installer. Even when non-free work is not executed by hardware during installation (e.g., by
user choice) does not mean all is well: You usually need to comply with non-free licensing terms to be able to distribute non-free works.
Another problem is that our social contract becomes meaningless if we intentionally violate it ourselves.
I think I'm missing a better problem statement to motivate any changes
here. The ones I've tried to understand, by watching Steve's
presentation this year and reading earlier mailing list posts, does not convince me: it appears to boil down to a desire to help more people be
able to install Debian and join the community. That desire is understandable, but does not motivate compromising the social contract
to me.
What surprises me is that there is any need of a change: the Debian
project accepts non-free works and distribute non-free installers for
anyone who wants them. So the practical problems facing people
requiring non-free software appears solved or possible to solve.
As you suggest in your final paragraph, maybe the issue is "merely"
about the cost-tradeoff between having one installer and having two installer. One solution is to only have a free installer then, since
there appears to be a lot of work involved to cater for all various kind
of non-free content out there.
Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks!
Steve, what do you think about the suggestion above that we have a ballot >option that only changes the SC and doesn't issue a statement on an issue
of the day, and thus doesn't include the text of your proposal? I'm
worried that may feel like the project isn't providing enough guidance or
a clear enough decision, but I'm not sure if that's true.
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" <jcc@debian.org> writes:
I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
I disagree strongly on this.
We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're >making to our users, and then stop.
Specifically, we should avoid including text that attempts to tell
them what they need to do, such as:
We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether
they can distribute it on their media or products.
If you really think we need to say this to downstream consumers / >distributors of our work, I'm sure we can find a way to do that. But
the Social Contract is the wrong place. It is, and must remain, an >articulation of our values and the associated commitments we're making
to our users. The fewer words it must contain to achieve those
objectives, the better.
An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some
practical consequences of redistributing non-free software.
I applaud and support this goal... but please don't burden our
fundamental statement of core values with such content.
Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
I read your proposals as a deep frustration with this situation and a
desire to solve the problem faster than waiting for free software
support for relevant hardware to materialize. I don't think this is a >problem that Debian should solve by compromising on the free software >principles. I think this is a problem Debian has been and is (slowly) >solving by remaining what it has been: a free OS. There is much more >hardware that works with free software today than it was 20 years ago.
Many hardware vendors today realize that support for GNU/Linux
distributions like Debian is important for their success.
I think the difference of opinion is that your proposal is based on the >argument that it is worth compromising on the ideals of free software in >order to allow users to be able to run free software. I disagree with
that opinion. If you disagree with my characterization of your
proposal, let's discuss and see if there is a middle ground somewhere.
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
I think I'm missing a better problem statement to motivate any changes
here. The ones I've tried to understand, by watching Steve's
presentation this year and reading earlier mailing list posts, does not
convince me: it appears to boil down to a desire to help more people be
able to install Debian and join the community. That desire is
understandable, but does not motivate compromising the social contract
to me.
This position makes a lot of sense to me. I happen to disagree with it,
but I think I understand why you hold it. I do think you're underplaying >Steve's arguments here, but I get why it's hard to summarize arguments
that you don't agree with.
The way I would put the argument is that one of the critical goals of
Debian is to be a universal operating system that prioritizes its users >alongside free software, and implicit in that prioritization is that
Debian is intended to be a practical, real-world, usable operating system
for regular computers, not (solely) a research experiment or ideological >statement. And I would say that one of the motives of Steve's proposal
(or, at the least, one of my motives for agreeing with it) is that I think >we, some time ago, reached the point where dynamically loadable firmware
is necessary in normal cases for our users.
The reason why I'm saying this so bluntly is that I am concerned that your >wording is approaching the implication that the folks with concerns about >this proposal are principled and the folks supporting this proposal are, >well, less principled in some way, or are compromising their principles.
I don't believe I am compromising my principles; I believe I am upholding >*different* principles than you are, about building something that does >things concretely in the world and values that utility at least equally
with making ideological statements. My disagreement with you *is* a >disagreement of principles, not a matter of you being more willing to
stick with principles than I am.
Also, to be clear, dropping the non-free installer is not on the ballot;
none of the options, including yours as you point out, say that. So I am
not worried that Debian is moving in this direction, and this is an
abstract discussion rather than something I think is likely. But after >reading your message a couple of times, it felt important to me to stress >that I don't feel like those who would prioritize DFSG freeness have a >monopoly on principles here.
However, I feel strongly that the non-free installer *has* to be
handled differently. If not, we're choosing to fail on (some of) our principles. This is why I'm here with this GR after all.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on
occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll
I think the difference of opinion is that your proposal is based on the >>argument that it is worth compromising on the ideals of free software in >>order to allow users to be able to run free software. I disagree with
that opinion. If you disagree with my characterization of your
proposal, let's discuss and see if there is a middle ground somewhere.
I think you have it, yes. We're simply disagreeing about what
compromises we're prepared to accept. I think that's fair, and fine -
I'm explicitly asking for a project-wide opinion on this. This is
also why I've seconded several of the competing ballot options. OK?
I think it is possible to argue in good faith that the Debian installer is not part of the Debian system as defined in SC 1. I would not personally make that argument, but I don't think it's an unreasonable argument to say that the Debian system is the packages in our "main" apt repository, and
the installer is a separate thing from the system.
I think I'm missing a better problem statement to motivate any changes
here. The ones I've tried to understand, by watching Steve's
presentation this year and reading earlier mailing list posts, does not
convince me: it appears to boil down to a desire to help more people be
able to install Debian and join the community. That desire is
understandable, but does not motivate compromising the social contract
to me.
This position makes a lot of sense to me. I happen to disagree with it,
but I think I understand why you hold it. I do think you're underplaying Steve's arguments here, but I get why it's hard to summarize arguments
that you don't agree with.
The way I would put the argument is that one of the critical goals of
Debian is to be a universal operating system that prioritizes its users alongside free software, and implicit in that prioritization is that
Debian is intended to be a practical, real-world, usable operating system
for regular computers, not (solely) a research experiment or ideological statement. And I would say that one of the motives of Steve's proposal
(or, at the least, one of my motives for agreeing with it) is that I think we, some time ago, reached the point where dynamically loadable firmware
is necessary in normal cases for our users.
In other words, I would say that an installer that doesn't support
non-free firmware is verging on becoming a hobbyist experiment: usable in narrow situations with specially-constructed hardware but not really
usable outside of the world of hobbyists with an interest in that specific construction of software freedom. To me, it therefore contradicts the *principles* of the Debian Project to be primarily pointing our users
towards an installer that is prioritizing making an ineffectual
ideological statement over making it possible for them to practically use
the operating system.
To be clear, I'm not saying this to try to convince you; I understand that you don't agree and I am not expecting you to change your mind. I'm
saying this because I'm encouraging you to have a better summary of the opposing argument in your head. I'm a little worried that you are constructing a bit of a straw man by downplaying the argument in favor of supporting firmware by making it about accomodation and compromise rather than a principled statement about the purpose of Debian (that you may
happen to disagree with).
What still puzzles me is that I regarded myself as having worked with a
lot of computer hardware over the years, without experiencing the kind
of situation described here. Yes, some hardware doesn't work with
Debian, but no I would not blame Debian for that nor give up or stop >contributing to Debian because of it, and no, I don't perceive such
hardware to be as overwhelmingly dominant as described. I think the
answer must be that people have different biases to what kind of
hardware they are exposed to. And perhaps a different preference how to
help people who are in an unfortunate situation.
Thanks -- this helps me understand the two principles at play here:
1) having a free Debian
2) having a Debian that works on as much hardware as possible
For me, principle 1) is more important than 2). For you and Steve, if I
may put words in your mouth, principle 2) is more important than 1).
I don't think the principle in 2) is well supported by Debian
documentation.
Many common laptops in the last 5-10 years don't come with wired
ethernet; it's becoming rarer over time. They ~all need firmware
loading to get onto the network with wifi. Many now need firmware for
working non-basic video, and audio also needs firmware on some of the
very latest models. The world has changed here, and I think your
perceptions may be out of date.
I recall that it took ~5 years until hardware (usually audio, video,
network cards) was well supported with stable releases of free software distributions in the 1990's. Often it was never possible to get some hardware to work with free software, especially laptops. This has
pretty much been the same since then.
Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
Many common laptops in the last 5-10 years don't come with wired
ethernet; it's becoming rarer over time. They ~all need firmware
loading to get onto the network with wifi. Many now need firmware for working non-basic video, and audio also needs firmware on some of the
very latest models. The world has changed here, and I think your perceptions may be out of date.
I recall that it took ~5 years until hardware (usually audio, video,
network cards) was well supported with stable releases of free software distributions in the 1990's.
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
Thanks -- this helps me understand the two principles at play here:
1) having a free Debian
2) having a Debian that works on as much hardware as possible
This summary is moving in the right direction! But your phrasing of 2)
isn't the principle that I personally hold; it's a consequence of that principle. I would rather go one level deeper and phrase it something
more like this:
2) having a Debian that is useful for and supports the needs of its users
When I first got deeply interested in free software in the late 1990s, I looked around and saw two basic mindsets towards free software. I'd
classify those as the FSF approach and the Debian approach. The FSF
decided to go down the route of ideological purism: they made the absolute minimum number of compromises possible and then shed them as soon as possible. Debian instead took the route of practicality and tried to make the operating system usable and flexible, recognizing that sometimes for
some people that would include non-free software. That upset the FSF
quite a bit; they considered (and I believe consider) Debian to not
"really" be a free software project because of this stance.
My opinion then, and my opinion now, is that Debian has the better of that argument. Debian's approach is simply more effective *at promoting free software*. As a result (not only of that stance, but largely I think
because of that stance) the FSF's attempts at producing operating systems have been hobbyist experiments and ideological statements that almost no
one uses. Meanwhile, Debian has become the foundation of numerous major
free Linux distributions.
For me, principle 1) is more important than 2). For you and Steve, if I
may put words in your mouth, principle 2) is more important than 1).
Ah, no, I have explained this poorly. This is not at all true for me, and
I suspect also not true for Steve.
For me, principle 1) is *equally important* than principle 2), and my disagreement with you is that I feel like you're discarding principle 2) rather than giving it equal weight.
I don't think the principle in 2) is well supported by Debian
documentation.
I believe that you're missing point 4 of the Social Contract.
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
kinds of computing environments.
The purpose of the Debian Project is absolutely to create a free software distribution. We are not Apple; the point is to build on top of free software. If I really considered 2) much more important than 1), I'd be
in favor of rolling non-free into main, including non-free drivers, and so forth. I am not.
But Debian, very early on, decided to navigate the tension between those
two equally-held principles by taking the route of making it usable
*first* and then as free as possible. The guiding principle where we have options about how to do something where both can work for the user is free software; that's the point of this endeavor. But we don't tell users that their hardware is useless and they need to buy new hardware in order to maintain free software purity. We meet them where they are, and then help them make their system as free as possible.
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
I recall that it took ~5 years until hardware (usually audio, video,
network cards) was well supported with stable releases of free software
distributions in the 1990's. Often it was never possible to get some
hardware to work with free software, especially laptops. This has
pretty much been the same since then.
I think what you're missing is that this changed about ten or fifteen
years ago. I can now buy a new off-the-shelf computer and run Debian on
it *immediately* because Linux now supports modern hardware and you don't have to run ancient gear.
Okay. But given a situation when someone comes to you with a hardware
component that requires non-free software to work, and asks you to
install Debian on it, would you resolve that by
1) install the free Debian system on it and provide them with the
documentation and binaries how to install the non-free software
required after they made their own informed decision
or
2) install the Debian system including the non-free work on it and
provide them with documentation explaining what happened
?
I take it yours and Steve's proposals is 2) while mine is 1).
Correct.
And, yes, approach 1) may result in the possibility that you have to say
"sorry, I can't install Debian on your hardware, and here is why". We
say the same when someone comes with an old 8086 processor or a quantum
computer prototype too, too broaden the view a bit.
Right, but in that case you would say "no one has written the code to make this work." In the case of 1 above, honestly the way I would read that is that you are saying "the software to make this computer work exists, but
it is a politically incorrect thoughtcrime and therefore I am not allowed
to touch it because it would violate my purity," something that I would
find INTENSELY off-putting. This is in part for personal reasons due to
past experiences with religious cult behavior, which leaves me with a deep-seated flinch reaction to things that feel like purity culture.
My experience is the same as you describe, with the free installer:
if you pick the right hardware, Debian works directly today.
What it seems this vote is about is to go back to the time where a
non-free work is required before you can get to the decent free
environment.
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
I think what you're missing is that this changed about ten or fifteen
years ago. I can now buy a new off-the-shelf computer and run Debian on
it *immediately* because Linux now supports modern hardware and you don't
have to run ancient gear.
Do you mean install Debian using our non-free installer?
What it seems this vote is about is to go back to the time where a
non-free work is required before you can get to the decent free
environment.
Wonderful -- it is good that I am able to finally express your view in a
way that you actually agree with.
I agree purity leads to cults and problems. My view of this situation
is that the Debian project is climbing up the stairs of the pragmatists' ivory tower to the point where it suffers from the ills of purism: by forbidding the free installer, the pragmatist becomes the mirror image
of a purist that wants to forbid everything that doesn't comply with its
own ideal.
In my mind, the pragmatic approch is to publish both the free and
non-free installer.
The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
else's choices and taking on the responsibility solve the consequences
of that choice seems misguided to me. It makes it harder for users to experience the frustration of such hardware themselves. I disagree they always get the non-free installer eventually: some end up learning about
the problem and chose better hardware. Some end up reverse engineering
their hardware, and contributing to a free solution. Some dislike other distributions taking a less rigid stance on non-free works, and will
come up with work-arounds to get Debian to work on the hardware. If
Debian takes on itself to solve the problems with non-free hardware, I
think we are in more difficult position to ask for a change.
Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
else's choices and taking on the responsibility solve the consequences
of that choice seems misguided to me. It makes it harder for users to
experience the frustration of such hardware themselves. I disagree they
always get the non-free installer eventually: some end up learning about
the problem and chose better hardware. Some end up reverse engineering
their hardware, and contributing to a free solution. Some dislike other
distributions taking a less rigid stance on non-free works, and will
come up with work-arounds to get Debian to work on the hardware. If
Debian takes on itself to solve the problems with non-free hardware, I
think we are in more difficult position to ask for a change.
Seconded.
We fought against lack of Linux drivers, then against the lack of free >drivers. Now, since in a lot of situation it is not tenable not to
provide Linux drivers (because Linux is the dominant server OS),
since it is not tenable to provide only non-free drivers (because
entreprise distros do not ship them), the move is toward smaller and
smaller drivers loading larger and larger non-free firmware.
Debian should not trick users into downloading non-free files.
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
Okay. But given a situation when someone comes to you with a hardware >component that requires non-free software to work, and asks you to
install Debian on it, would you resolve that by
1) install the free Debian system on it and provide them with the
documentation and binaries how to install the non-free software
required after they made their own informed decision
or
2) install the Debian system including the non-free work on it and
provide them with documentation explaining what happened
?
I take it yours and Steve's proposals is 2) while mine is 1).
And, yes, approach 1) may result in the possibility that you have to say >"sorry, I can't install Debian on your hardware, and here is why". We
say the same when someone comes with an old 8086 processor or a quantum >computer prototype too, too broaden the view a bit.
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
Wonderful -- it is good that I am able to finally express your view in a
way that you actually agree with.
Yes, thank you very much for your thoughtful and productive engagement in >this thread! It's really satisfying to be able to talk about things that >provoke strong feelings and be able to have a productive conversation that >helps both people understand each other.
I agree purity leads to cults and problems. My view of this situation
is that the Debian project is climbing up the stairs of the pragmatists'
ivory tower to the point where it suffers from the ills of purism: by
forbidding the free installer, the pragmatist becomes the mirror image
of a purist that wants to forbid everything that doesn't comply with its
own ideal.
In my mind, the pragmatic approch is to publish both the free and
non-free installer.
So, spoiler, while I'm going to vote E first (I have a policy of only >proposing ballot options I would vote first), my guess is that B is going
to win for precisely the reasons you describe. I will certainly vote B
above NOTA. (For full disclosure, my vote is likely E>B>C>A>NOTA>D.)
In other words, I think we have a fair bit of common ground. My concern >about having both installers is pragmatic; I don't think it's necessary
and I think it's confusing to users (not to mention additional work that >divides our efforts). But it's certainly not a violation of Debian's >principles. My general policy for votes is that I'll vote my own
principles and let everyone else vote theirs and rely on the voting system
to reach compromises, but the compromise in B (and for that matter C) are >both ones I'm happy with.
I don't think having only one installer carries the message that you're >seeing in it. I think it's just a more elegant and straightforward way of >providing the user with a choice about whether to use non-free software
and respecting that choice. But I completely understand how you arrived
at the conclusion that you did and I respect your reasoning. In some ways >it's probably more sound than mine.
I agree insofar as: E > B > C > NOTA > D
I put A in a different spot: A > B > C. You have B > C > A.
E is A plus the SC modification. With E as your first choice, why
wouldn't you put A > B?
Hi,
On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 21:03 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
My experience is the same as you describe, with the free installer:
if you pick the right hardware, Debian works directly today.
By "right hardware", I assume you mean hardware that comes with already preinstalled non-free software?
Does choosing only hardware with preinstalled non-free software
(instead of partially OS-supplied non-free firmware) make the non-free software more free?
What it seems this vote is about is to go back to the time where a
non-free work is required before you can get to the decent free
environment.
Try removing all non-free firmware then. Your system won't boot, not
display anything and you won't be able to input anything either.
Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored inThe problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone else's choices and taking on the responsibility solve the consequences
of that choice seems misguided to me. It makes it harder for users to experience the frustration of such hardware themselves. I disagree they always get the non-free installer eventually: some end up learning about the problem and chose better hardware. Some end up reverse engineering their hardware, and contributing to a free solution. Some dislike other distributions taking a less rigid stance on non-free works, and will
come up with work-arounds to get Debian to work on the hardware. If
Debian takes on itself to solve the problems with non-free hardware, I think we are in more difficult position to ask for a change.
Seconded.
We fought against lack of Linux drivers, then against the lack of free drivers. Now, since in a lot of situation it is not tenable not to
provide Linux drivers (because Linux is the dominant server OS),
since it is not tenable to provide only non-free drivers (because
entreprise distros do not ship them), the move is toward smaller and
smaller drivers loading larger and larger non-free firmware.
Debian should not trick users into downloading non-free files.
My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free
system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so.
For example, I install the firmware-iwlwifi package on my laptop because
I haven't been bothered to replace the wifi module with an Atheros wifi module yet, even though I bought it five years ago. This flexibility
suits me well, and it does not seem to be in conflict with the
flexibility you appear to desire: using a non-free installer to install
these things automatically for you. My flexibility will no longer be permitted by Proposal A and E.
/Simon
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
To me, the FSF's attempts to produce an operating system lead to the
range of GNU/Linux distributions that came about during that time, which
we all still use.
Right, I think both things are true.
I think the FSF achieved amazing things in the early days of the organization, to which we all owe them a debt of gratitude. And then, as
is the tendency of many successful organizations, they were unable to distinguish between the tactics that were critical to their success from
the tactics that they succeeded *in spite of*, and instead took this
success as confirmation that every single jot and tittle of their ideology was correct. As a result, they became ideologically hide-bound and inflexible, unable to learn from experience and unable to push their long-standing effort to create a free software operating system over the finish line.
The FSF bogged down in infighting over ideological purity, massively mismanaged several of their centerpiece projects to the point of nearly destroying them, and started becoming irrelevant, a trend that has sadly continued to this day. Meanwhile, other organizations, including Debian, learned from the tactics and ideology of the FSF that were successful and adopted them, learned from the FSF tactics that failed and discarded them, and picked up where the FSF left off and were able to succeed in that project.
Right. I think that it's important to realize that the FSF and Debian
use different tactics to promote Free Software. The FSF focuses on
promoting a clean ideology to the point of ignoring practical problems.
The risk is becoming irrelevant, because very few people are able to live with the compromises that are required by ignoring the practical issues.
It's like the lighthouse joke: "the FSF is like a lighthouse. As a boat,
it's extremely useful to know where it stands, but you probably don't
want to be at the exact same position as the lighthouse."
Debian, on the other hand, promotes a similar ideology, but allows compromises, while being explicit about them. This is extremely powerful because we demonstrate that we are able to produce something that is of
high quality and useful to our numerous users, and at the same time we
are in a great position to inform our users about the compromises that
were required to do so, and weight in to improve the long term
situation.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free
system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so.
For example, I install the firmware-iwlwifi package on my laptop because
I haven't been bothered to replace the wifi module with an Atheros wifi
module yet, even though I bought it five years ago. This flexibility
suits me well, and it does not seem to be in conflict with the
flexibility you appear to desire: using a non-free installer to install
these things automatically for you. My flexibility will no longer be
permitted by Proposal A and E.
As you keep repeating that:
Proposal A and E explictly states:
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.).**
You still have the flexibilty. You still can make the non-free firmware inert bits.
The installer will still not *require* these bits to function.
Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
I believe the Debian project is permitted to publish non-free installers under the current DSC/DFSG (which it actually is doing today; just
hidden), but according to the DSC it is not part of the Debian system.
On September 12, 2022 8:23:22 PM UTC, Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> wrote:
Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
else's choices and taking on the responsibility solve the consequences
of that choice seems misguided to me. It makes it harder for users to
experience the frustration of such hardware themselves. I disagree they >> always get the non-free installer eventually: some end up learning about >> the problem and chose better hardware. Some end up reverse engineering
their hardware, and contributing to a free solution. Some dislike other >> distributions taking a less rigid stance on non-free works, and will
come up with work-arounds to get Debian to work on the hardware. If
Debian takes on itself to solve the problems with non-free hardware, I
think we are in more difficult position to ask for a change.
Seconded.
We fought against lack of Linux drivers, then against the lack of free >drivers. Now, since in a lot of situation it is not tenable not to
provide Linux drivers (because Linux is the dominant server OS),
since it is not tenable to provide only non-free drivers (because >entreprise distros do not ship them), the move is toward smaller and >smaller drivers loading larger and larger non-free firmware.
Debian should not trick users into downloading non-free files.
All this is, is a preference for permanent non-free firmware that can't be updated or fixed. I don't think it serves our users at all.
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
more favorable to the users than the laws governing freestanding
firmware.
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +0000, Bill Allombert a écrit :
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
more favorable to the users than the laws governing freestanding
firmware.
To gives a random example: firmware-iwlwifi
(by the way the link in packages.d.o to the copyright file does not work https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nonfree_20210315-3_copyright
return 404
)
* No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software
is permitted.
This would not be legal for embedded firmware
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED
You cannot disclaim warranty on hardware. You have to provide statutory warranty.
Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes:
Right. I think that it's important to realize that the FSF and Debian
use different tactics to promote Free Software. The FSF focuses on promoting a clean ideology to the point of ignoring practical problems.
The risk is becoming irrelevant, because very few people are able to live with the compromises that are required by ignoring the practical issues.
It's like the lighthouse joke: "the FSF is like a lighthouse. As a boat, it's extremely useful to know where it stands, but you probably don't
want to be at the exact same position as the lighthouse."
Debian, on the other hand, promotes a similar ideology, but allows compromises, while being explicit about them. This is extremely powerful because we demonstrate that we are able to produce something that is of high quality and useful to our numerous users, and at the same time we
are in a great position to inform our users about the compromises that
were required to do so, and weight in to improve the long term
situation.
I don't think that is a unbalanced comparison of the positions. Debian
and FSF makes _different_ compromises, and have _different_ red lines
for what they consider unacceptable.
To illustrate, Debian does not consider a work under the GFDL with an invariant section to be free, and (as far as I understand) would not
permit them in main or in the Debian installer. Disallowing
modifications is quite similar to the terms for some non-free firmware.
It is easy to criticize the FSF but may be harder to realize that most
of the arguments can be applied to Debian as well.
Both approaches are reasonable and valid positions to take. I like that Debian takes a stand against invariant sections. I like that the FSF
takes a stand against the non-free section in Debian. I think both are problematic, but I also accept that there are situations where they are
an acceptable compromise given different guiding principles. The
positions share a lot of mutual ground but there are conflicting areas.
On 13/09/22 at 14:49 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes:
Right. I think that it's important to realize that the FSF and Debian
use different tactics to promote Free Software. The FSF focuses on
promoting a clean ideology to the point of ignoring practical problems.
The risk is becoming irrelevant, because very few people are able to live >> > with the compromises that are required by ignoring the practical issues. >> >
It's like the lighthouse joke: "the FSF is like a lighthouse. As a boat, >> > it's extremely useful to know where it stands, but you probably don't
want to be at the exact same position as the lighthouse."
Debian, on the other hand, promotes a similar ideology, but allows
compromises, while being explicit about them. This is extremely powerful >> > because we demonstrate that we are able to produce something that is of
high quality and useful to our numerous users, and at the same time we
are in a great position to inform our users about the compromises that
were required to do so, and weight in to improve the long term
situation.
I don't think that is a unbalanced comparison of the positions. Debian
and FSF makes _different_ compromises, and have _different_ red lines
for what they consider unacceptable.
To illustrate, Debian does not consider a work under the GFDL with an
invariant section to be free, and (as far as I understand) would not
permit them in main or in the Debian installer. Disallowing
modifications is quite similar to the terms for some non-free firmware.
It is easy to criticize the FSF but may be harder to realize that most
of the arguments can be applied to Debian as well.
Both approaches are reasonable and valid positions to take. I like that
Debian takes a stand against invariant sections. I like that the FSF
takes a stand against the non-free section in Debian. I think both are
problematic, but I also accept that there are situations where they are
an acceptable compromise given different guiding principles. The
positions share a lot of mutual ground but there are conflicting areas.
I'm not criticizing the FSF. I think it is extremely useful (like a lighthouse). I truly appreciate their approach. I like
the intellectual challenge of confronting my own willingness to
compromise with the pure ideology they express.
However, I'm pointing out that Debian generally follows a different
tactic. And I don't think that it would be a good idea for Debian to
switch tactics.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +0000, Bill Allombert a écrit :
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
more favorable to the users than the laws governing freestanding firmware.
To gives a random example: firmware-iwlwifi
(by the way the link in packages.d.o to the copyright file does not work https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nonfree_20210315-3_copyright
return 404
)
* No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software
is permitted.
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED
You cannot disclaim warranty on hardware. You have to provide statutory warranty.
You can't disclaim statutory warranty, regardless if its hardware or software.
However, you can write a lot of sentences in your licenses, even some sentences
which are legally ineffective…
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice, but my oppinion.
I agree it doesn't make sense for either organization to change
approach. I do believe that what we are seeing in this vote, however,
is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than providing a 100% free Debian (guided by the DSC/DFSG) and using that as a tactic to change the world, Debian will (under A/E) provide a 99% free Debian.
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
...
I agree it doesn't make sense for either organization to change
approach. I do believe that what we are seeing in this vote, however,
is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than providing a 100% free Debian (guided by the DSC/DFSG) and using that as a tactic to change the world, Debian will (under A/E) provide a 99% free Debian.
Stretching that metaphor a little: making non-free firmware available
in the installer strikes me as equivalent to offering Wellington boots
to new arrivals at the beach, so that they can wade across the muddy
patch to get to the nice dry, sandy bit of beach where we play barefoot.
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:17:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +0000, Bill Allombert a écrit :
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
more favorable to the users than the laws governing freestanding firmware.
To gives a random example: firmware-iwlwifi
(by the way the link in packages.d.o to the copyright file does not work https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nonfree_20210315-3_copyright
return 404
)
* No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software
is permitted.
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED
You cannot disclaim warranty on hardware. You have to provide statutory warranty.
You can't disclaim statutory warranty, regardless if its hardware or software.
However, you can write a lot of sentences in your licenses, even some sentences
which are legally ineffective…
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice, but my oppinion.
I am not a lawyer either, but Intel _does_ have lawyers that drafted
this that way, and they know exactly what advantage they can get from
it.
IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
ever comes to it".
Or even "I've seen this in other licenses, can't hurt, let's copy".
If a requirement like that gets thrown out in court, they haven't lost anything, but if it *doesn't* get thrown out, they have gained an
advantage.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
ever comes to it".
Or even "I've seen this in other licenses, can't hurt, let's copy".
If a requirement like that gets thrown out in court, they haven't lost anything, but if it *doesn't* get thrown out, they have gained an advantage.
Indeed, but Debian should not promote this.
Le Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:37:08PM +0200, Philip Hands a écrit :
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
...
I agree it doesn't make sense for either organization to change
approach. I do believe that what we are seeing in this vote, however,
is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than providing a 100% free
Debian (guided by the DSC/DFSG) and using that as a tactic to change the >> > world, Debian will (under A/E) provide a 99% free Debian.
Stretching that metaphor a little: making non-free firmware available
in the installer strikes me as equivalent to offering Wellington boots
to new arrivals at the beach, so that they can wade across the muddy
patch to get to the nice dry, sandy bit of beach where we play barefoot.
Yes, but this is not the question at hand. Nobody is suggesting that the non-free installer should not exist, but whether it should be considered
part of Debian or part of non-free.
This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1 majority.
The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
identical to the current version in all respects except that it adds the following sentence to the end of point 5:
The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not
part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that
requires such firmware.
The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the
day:
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. 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. 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. Thanks, Russ!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:37:58 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,397 |