Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

Josselin Mouette
2005-04-08T17:44:08Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1615 bytes --]

Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > but to a court.
>
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> than RedHat?

Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
stated they won't ask for fees on MP3 decoders.

> How do you install Debian on a harddisk behind a SCSI controller who's
> driver was removed from the Debian kernels due to it's firmware?

Which SCSI controller are you talking about?

> > Being careless in the definition of "free software" is a real disservice
> > to users. It makes them rely on e.g. non-free documentation for everyday
> > use.
> >...
>
> Documentation is "software"?

Sure.

> Non-free documentation is better than no documentation.
>
> Non-free software has several problems, but some of them like the right
> to do modifications are less important for documentation, since e.g.
> fixes for security bugs are not an issue.
>
> Removing the available documentation without an equal replacement is a
> real disserve for your users.

GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `' joss@debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

[-- Attachment #2: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]