[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer

[Margot]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:17:27 +0200 (SAST)
Buchan Milne <bgmilne at staff.telkomsa.net> wrote:

> 
> ----- "andre999" <andr55 at laposte.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > ok.
> > My though was essentially that firmware is so close to hardware
> > that its 
> > actual free/non-free status shouldn't apply - we should treat
> > it like
> > 
> > (almost) part of the hardware.
> 
> I would agree, but some people wouldn't.
> 
> > As for the drivers, a little more distant from the hardware,
> > they could 
> > be in non-free, but I sincerely think that they should be on
> > all installation isos.
> 
> I wouldn't say "all".
> 
> > That is, on installing from an iso, all hardware-related
> > functions should (ideally) be fully functional, even if it
> > requires using non-free 
> > drivers.
> 
> IMHO, not without informing the user, so that they have the
> choice (e.g. to consider replacing the hardware by something
> supported by free software => supporting vendors who support free
> software).
> 
> > The lack of some drivers (or components of drivers) can render a
> > system 
> > technically functional, but with important dysfunctions, simply
> > because 
> > the required drivers were not available on installation.
> > That should not happen.
> 
> IMHO, that is not *our* choice to make for the user.
> 
> > The kernel, firmware and drivers, built on the hardware,
> > provide a platform on which the application software runs.
> > True, it is better if drivers are open source, but in my view,
> > it is application software where open source is the most
> > important.
> 
> But, that is *your* view.
> 
> IMHO, some of these questions should be posed to the community.
> 
> For example, maybe we should brand ISO releases as something like
> "Mageia Libre" and "Mageia Gratis" (note, not a "Mageia" and
> "Mageia limited" or similar, give equal standing to both
> releases), where Libre would include no non-free software of any
> kind on the media, users using Libre would never be prompted
> about non-free software (without opting in, by e.g. installing a
> different release package). Gratis would include non-free
> software/firmware required to enable hardware or specific
> hardware features.
> 
> I think it may be worthwhile catering to users who would like to
> follow FSF Free distribution guidelines as closely as possible,
> by providing a release that is as close as practically possible
> to these guidelines (but still making it possible for pragmatic
> users to have a good experience).
> 
> Regards,
> Buchan

I particularly like the proposed use of the terms Libre and Gratis.

My main concern is that newbie Mageia users - those who come direct
from Windows, rather than from another variety of Linux - might
abandon the installation when asked to opt in (or out) of anything
marked 'non-free', mistakenly thinking that they will have to pay
for it.

-- 
Margot
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
**Otford Ducks Computers**
We teach, you learn...
...and, if you don't do your homework, we set the cat on you!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~