[Freedombox-discuss] non-free on sources.list
James Vasile
vasile at freedomboxfoundation.org
Fri Dec 9 18:51:29 UTC 2011
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:25:15 -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez <quiliro at congresolibre.org> wrote:
> On 09/12/11 12:40, James Vasile wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:07:12 -0200, Felipe Sanches<juca at members.fsf.org> wrote:
> >> I think that it would be good software-freedom policy to keep the
> >> repositories completely clean of non-free packages and then have clear
> >> documentation stating which non-free packages are needed for each
> >> additional features that are not supported by the fully-free system.
> >> So, people who cannot afford to lack these features would have to
> >> manually install the non-free stuff. It is important to leave non-free
> >> packages to be explicetly installed manually by the users that desire
> >> them so that every user of non-free packages is aware of its usage of
> >> non-free stuff (and the reasons for needing that).
> >>
> >> happy hacking,
> >> Felipe Sanches
> > This is ultimately a usability vs freedom issue. There's going to be a
> > trade-off either way unless somebody writes free software to replace the
> > wireless firmware and extends the free wireless driver to do host-ap
> > mode.
>
> Is this possible? What skills are needed for this? Could we collectively
> finance a payment for this (even if it could be a very small one)?
There is a variety of information we would need that is not public.
Moreover, wireless chipsets change fast. Trying to keep up with that
pace is not the point of this project, so I think we're unlikely to run
on that treadmill.
The efficient thing to do here is probably to keep the pressure up for
release of the non-public information and for manufacturers to choose
chipsets that have documentation so we can fix future platforms. And
when a manufacturer does choose chipsets that can be freed, we should
buy those devices first.
More information about the Freedombox-discuss
mailing list