Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freedom issues with non-free firmware in external files

[Diego Saravia]

El 14 de agosto de 2009 17:43, Rubén Rodríguez Pérez<address@hidden> escribió:
> El vie, 14-08-2009 a las 16:46 -0300, Diego Saravia escribió:
>> >> or only print info about what is missing?
>> >
>> > The vanilla kernel prints an error about the missing files if the
>> > request fails. For the case of non-free blobs, linux-libre now prints
>> > a /*DEBLOBBED*/ message, and the files are not actually requested.
>>
>> Ututo now also prints a special message.
>
> Nice. What does it say?

something like the file was removed because it could containg some free soft





>
>>
>> > If a driver needs a non-free firmware file to work, removing it renders
>> > the driver useless, so you can remove it. Having non working drivers
>> > looks pointless to me, and can -maybe in a subtle way- cause harm.
>>
>> could you tell us about this subtle harm?
>
> E.g. someone can tell your users how to make the driver work, by
> recommending to use the non-free file, thus harming their freedom. It's
> not you who is causing the harm, but the one who recommends the file.
> But if the driver is removed, you are not even allowing that to happen.

if someone is determined to use its hardware you can do nothing to stop them

we are working for freedom, why we will try to stop someone to do what
they want?

we could warning, we could not work to produce non-free, but not
telling truth to people and trying to stop them could not be called
freedom.

 >
>>
>> > Then the maintainer of the freed version of the kernel can stop removing
>> > that module.
>>
>> and the people will need to upgrade, a lot of additional work
>
> How can you provide your users with a new driver without an upgrade?

people could copy the new file from its site, why they would need to
depend on me.

>
> I think you are using "detecting" in a different way than I do. The
> kernel does not need the modules to know if a piece of hardware is
> present. No matter if you remove the module, it can be detected.

yes in some cases, but the point is, are you detecting it?


> You can't tell if -let's say- a ipw2100 card is broken unless you use
> the non-free firmware. I wouldn't care if it's broken, it doesn't work
> with free software anyway, so it is always broken.

its broken today, but perhaps people with the problem could develop free soft.


>
> I don't see the guidelines being imposed.

nothing is imposed in free software, copyright is imposed by law.


 I see them as an useful set of
> recommendations -not everyone is aware of the issues of a free distro-,
> and it can be useful for non-free distros that might like to go libre.

yes, if its well writen

>
> Everyone has a viewpoint, that is why they are called guidelines, and
> that is why I think we should talk about them.

of course, we need to change them, or write new ones, better ones.


> Including non-modifiable art is ok to me. Trademarks and patents are
> important issues that every distro needs to be aware of.

of course, we must reyect trademarks problems at all,
patents is not a problem in countries that do not have it.

so that problem needs international diferentiation

we must work on diferent distros, country by country

non modifiable art is a big problem, we must take away from our distros



>
>> >> is free-linux something usefull? or the removal can be done by a
>> >> script running over a normal kernel?
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if I'm getting your question. :|
>>
>> do the world need free-linux?
>
> That is a rude question. If you don't like it, don't use it,

its rude to be used as the only way, there are alternatives

could not be mentioned in a global guideline, must be removed.


>it's not a
> requirement. I mentioned it as an example implementation of a freed
> kernel, and it is used by several projects in this list, so it makes the
> task of cleaning more easy for a lot of hackers including myself.
>
>> >
>> >> do free distros must have non-free-software-having-hardware detection
>> >> procedures and user warnings?
>> >
>> > Please, explain "non-free-software-having-hardware detection procedures"
>>
>> capability to detect and warn user about hardware without free software
>
> I think it is a nice feature, that allows us to tell the user about the
> perils of non-free software. I also think it shouldn't be mandatory.

ok, we agree, we must tell people what hardware we are not able to
cope with, and what is the real problem: driver, blob, etc, we must
give freedom to people, not restrictions.





-- 
Diego Saravia
address@hidden
NO FUNCIONA->address@hidden