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

[Yavor Doganov]

Diego Saravia wrote:
> we are not talking about that, we are talking about distributing
> drivers without blobs.

I got it.  So, if such a driver entirely depends on the blobs, it
should not be distributed.  If some devices work without the blobs
available (for example, e100), it can be distributed.  If the question
is whether it should load the firmware on demand, then no.  The user
can make it do so if she wishes to bury her sense of freedom.  If
there is third-party _free_ firmware available, then the question is
more interesting, and more technical.

> and we are not talking either about prerequisites. we are talking
> about an invitation to develop what is needed: a free firmware.

Could you please explain what this invitation entails?  I am failing
to see how, when you distribute a driver that can only work with
non-free firmware, you are encouraging the development of free
firmware.

> was ok or was not ok to distribute gnash when it was almost
> inoperative because its not complete developed?

Distributing Gnash was always OK.  Encouraging the use of a format
that was (and still is, to a great extent) proprietary, is not.

And a kernel module that relies on non-free firmware is not the same
like gnash, evolution-exchange or empathy/pidgin/etc.

> somepeople said that we must not incentivate the use of that kind of
> video codification, and that we must not distribute gnash, nor flash,

I was not among those people, although I'd be very happy to see Flash
dead, just like it has always been for me.