On 16/12/10 09:53, Marcos David Cáceres wrote:
El 16 de diciembre de 2010 10:16, Nicolás
Reynolds <address@hidden>
escribió:
El 16/12/10 11:12, Henry Jensen dijo:
> Thanks for your work. As I see it the main difference
between the
> Squeeze kernel and Linux-Libre is the ability to load
non-free firmware
> and as such the very mentioning of non-free firmware
files in the
> soruce code.
>
> The Squeeze kernel is still able to load non-free
firmware, but it's
> not delivered in the main repository (it is in the
non-free repo,
> AFAIK).
>
> Linux-Libre isn't able to load non-free firmware, even if
you obtain
> the non-free firmware files somehow.
>
> So, it's a matter of attitude. Do we give the user the
opportunity to
> use non-free software if he wishes to do so, despite the
> recommendations, or do we prevent it proactively?
>
> For example, GNU Icecat doesn't suggest non-free plugins.
But Icecat is
> still able to load non-free plugins, it is not prevented
proactively.
> Of course, the main difference is, that non-free software
isn't
> mentioned in the Icecat source code (at least I assume
so, I didn't
> check), where non-free software is explicitly mentioned
hard-coded in
> the source code, so the situation is only slightly
comparable.
>
> Giving the user the ability to use non-free software
without any
> comment leads to a situation where unexperienced users
might be not
> knowing what they are doing. For example Debian help
forums are full of
> advices for novice users to activate the non-free
repository. Same goes
> for Fedora where novice users are encouraged in forums to
integrate
> non-official repositories with non-free software.
>
> To proactively prevent the use of non-free software on
the other hand
> is censorship. I recall RMS pointing out in an interview
that any free
> operating system should allow to do anything. I CC him,
maybe he has
> some thoughts to add.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Henry
>
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:56:07 -0800 (PST)
> "Jason Self" <address@hidden>
wrote:
>
> > In light of Debian's recent announcement [1] I and
others were interested in how
> > well the Debian folks cleaned up their kernel. I
proceeded to grab the source
> > for the Squeeze kernel, ran the linux-libre
deblobbing script on it, and then
> > diffed it against the original to see what had
changed.
> >
> > The full deblob log [2] & diff [3] is available
to anyone that's interested in
> > knowing.
> >
> > [1] http://www.debian.org/News/2010/20101215
> > [2] http://aws.bluehome.net/squeeze_kernel_deblog_log.txt
> > [3] http://aws.bluehome.net/squeeze_kernel_diff.txt
I recall this discussion had place a year ago between
linux-libre and ututo (I
mean between people behind those projects), where your same
arguments were
used.
And IIRC, finally there was a note in the linux-libre site
saying that loading
nonfree firmware isn't banned anymore. Haven't tested it
though, and I can't
seem to find it...
I'm CCing the lists where the discussion had place.
--
Salud!
Nicolás Reynolds,
xmpp:address@hidden
omb:http://identi.ca/fauno
blog:http://selfdandi.com.ar/
gnu/linux user #455044
http://librecultivo.org.ar
http://parabolagnulinux.org
A ver si entiendo. Esta es la eterna discusión de si quien es
más papista que el papa, no?
La gente de Debian dice (por lo que logré entender) que
prohibir la carga de blobs propietarias es 'censurador' y otra
gente dice que el kernel, para ser libre (como linux-libre) no
debería siquiera permitir esto, no?
No, precisamente están diciendo que para considerarlo como
libre, no debería impedir hacer nada. Por lo tanto, linux-libre
ofusca los nombres de los archivos y de ésta manera no
recomienda módulos privativos pero puede cargarlos.
[he asked for an explanation, little explanation given in spanish]
|