kernel-libre (hopefully 100% Free) for Fedora 8 and rawhide
Chris Snook
csnook at redhat.com
Mon Mar 24 02:54:28 UTC 2008
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2008, Chris Snook <csnook at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> Err... This would mean that whoever distributes the kernel binaries
>>> would be required to ship the corresponding sources containing
>>> non-Free Software, which is precisely the sort of thing I'd like to
>>> avoid, such that I and others who refuse to distribute non-Free
>>> Software can promote Fedora at least to some extent.
>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but I honestly don't see a risk in shipping
>> *sources* which contain hex-coded firmware blobs that have been
>> licensed for distribution,
>
> This is not about the risk. This is about not distributing non-Free
> software. For me, it's not a matter of licensing, not a matter of
> license compatibility. It's a matter of not supporting the
> distribution of non-Free Software, no matter how hidden it is, or how
> important it is for some.
>
> I'm not taking away anyone's choices. I'm just adding means for
> people to run and distribute Fedora while being more assured they're
> not using or distributing any code they got from Fedora that is
> non-Free Software.
But I maintain that it would be more effective if you would do it in a
fashion that would be more conducive to getting people who are less
aware of these issues to actually use your work. Most people won't
notice what you're doing, and I think that harms your mission.
>> If you'd like that incentive to carry any weight, perhaps you should
>> write a patch that has a chance of getting accepted into Fedora
>> proper.
>
> A patch won't fix this. People keep on adding firmwares to the
> upstream kernel. It has to be a continous monitoring and maintenance
> process. It's painful, I know. I'm willing to do it, to keep a 100%
> Free kernel. I'm willing to do it for myself, even if it's not
> integrated in Fedora.
The upstream kernel is already moving away from in-tree firmware. I
think if you did this in an extremely visible way, by breaking out the
non-free blobs from the core Fedora kernel that millions of people use,
it would be a greater service to this effort.
> Now, if Fedora doesn't take it, it will say something about Fedora's
> stance towards freedom. I know I differ from Fedora in this regard
> already, so that's no big deal.
>
>> Personally, I just want to install the package called "kernel".
>> Unless I have an absolutely compelling reason, I'm not going out of my
>> way for anything else, be it "kernel-libre" or "kernel-firmware".
>
> I respect your position, even though I disagree with it. That's one
> of the reasons why I've started this as a separate kernel-libre
> package, rather than asking Fedora to drop all the non-Free firmware
> in the kernel and outside, out of coherence with its stated mission.
I'm a contributor to the upstream kernel, and I oppose in-tree blobs.
My point is that if *I* am lazy about this, we can expect the
overwhelming majority of users to be lazy about it as well. You've
designed this in a manner that makes it useful only for preaching to the
choir. If that's your goal, so be it. I think that your idea is very
useful, and if implemented slightly differently, it could reach a lot
more people and have a much greater impact.
> However, some people find the existence of non-Free Software a
> sufficiently compelling reason to want a 100% Free kernel, and then a
> 100% Free distro. I wish Fedora could be it. If it doesn't want to
> be, that's fine, there's always BLAG.
>
I think you'll accomplish more by pushing Fedora to be more Free than by
starting your own fork. That's your prerogative, but you've clearly put
a lot of thought into this, and it would be a shame if all that effort
had to be duplicated to push Fedora (more gradually) in the same direction.
-- Chris
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list