gnu-linux-libre
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Rubén Rodríguez Pérez
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freedom issues with non-free firmware in external files
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:43:25 +0200

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?

> 
> > 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.

> 
> > 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?

> 
> >> is there another way to detect that hardware?
> >
> > All hardware can be detected. That part doesn't matter.
> 
> can is different than doing it. Why do you think that do not matter

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.

> 
> >> is not usefull to know what hardware do not have frre software to work 
> >> with?
> >
> > Yes, but how is that related to the load call thing?
> 
> is related to the module
> 
> modules are a way to know if the hardware exists and is working.

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.

> >> > -What is enough to comply with the Guidelines for Free System
> >> > Distributions? [3]
> >>
> >> is this free guideline fine?
> >
> > Is ok for me, but maybe it needs some clarifications (like this issue).
> 
> its not weel organized, have a lot of confusing parts, etc
> 
> but the principal issue is its central argument
> 
> we have free software definition, a huge agreement about that, why try
> to impose additional conditions?

I don't see the guidelines being imposed. 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.

Additional positions should be taken every time a new threat appears.

> why to speak about trademarks and  non functional non-free works
> 
> we are talking about a free distribution with non free material, why?
> For example debian is more restrictive on that

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

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

> >> 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, 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.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]