[Fsf-Debian] Non-free firmware question during install

[Paul van der Vlis]

Op 07-08-12 16:49, Gunnar Wolf schreef:
> Paul van der Vlis dijo [Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 12:07:00PM +0200]:
>>>>> Well, than let's address this problem and reword the text as to warn 
>>>>> against non-free firmware instead of hiding the issue under the carpet 
>>>>> on the premise that some firmware may be free.
>>>>
>>>> Can you try to find those words?
>>>>
>>>> I've tried it, the result was not nice. And if you want to give a
>>>> possibillity to load firmware, then it can be interpreted as
>>>> recommending non-free firmware. Please try it.
>>>
>>> ,----
>>> | Some of your hardware needs non-free firmware to operate. 
>>
>> No, the hardware needs firmware, there can be free firmware. What you
>> are saying is something like: "for reading this file you need Adobe Reader".
> 
> «Some of your hardware needs firmware to operate; to the best of our
> knowledge, only non-free firmware exists that can be used to run this
> hardware». Would that be OK?

Hmmm. It's OK, but I don't like it. I would like to avoid the word
"non-free" and talk about the positive other side, about "free".

What about:
Some of your hardware needs firmware to operate. Debian only ships free
firmware and probably there was no free firmware available for your
hardware at the time this installer was made.

> (of course, it gets baroquer and baroquer... But it gets the point accross)
> 
>>> | Debian does not recommend using non-free software, which is why
>>> | it is not provided in the installer.
>>
>> Not sure. Not recommending something quietly is something else as saying
>> lout and clear: "we do not recommend".
>> I think a part of the Debian community will say: we still recommend
>> using non-free firmware in this case. So it would be difficult to realize.
> 
> As part of the Debian community, and as a user of nonfree firmware
> (for my cheap hardware), I think the provided wording is right:
> Basically, it says "we are sorry we cannot give you something better;
> we'd love to, but there is none. We understand you have reasonable
> expectations to use that (wireless card|graphics chip|whatever) your
> computer has, but to be able to do so, you must taint our free
> software system with some non-free firmware".

For me it's OK. Not sure it's for others.

But if we do not talk about nonfree firmware, we do not need to tell
that we do not recommended it.

> It would be something comparable to shipping precompiled versions of
> gcc for nonfree unixes in the first days of the FSF: We would love not
> to need to do it, but it is necessary for our project to get its point
> accross to its users. And, as free software is developed, nonfree
> software gets replaced. 

We do not want to ship them, but like to give users a change to load
something. Free or non-free.

> Of course, there is a big difference: Firmware is not something we can
> just decide to cook independently, as it needs access to trade
> secrets. And given that reverse engineering is now a bad word

In my opinion it's not a bad word!

> (hopefully we don't have to substitute that for "a criminal offense")
> we must somehow get the companies to deliver at least documentation
> allowing free software to be created.

That's better. Like e.g. Broadcom did.

>> What do you think of:
>> ----
>> | detect network hardware
>> |
>> | Some of your hardware needs firmware to operate. Debian does
>> | not distribute non-free software, for that reason the firmware from
>> | the manufacturer was not included.
>> |
>> | The missing firmware files are: ......
>> |
>> | Firmware can be loaded from removable media, such as USB stick or
>> | floppy.
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> ----
> 
> Right, I see the difference you propose: Not telling the user where to
> get that nonfree stuff. 

I think telling about nonfree.org would be wrong in the eyes of the FSF.
For me, it would not be a problem.

> I believe, though, it plays deceptively. The
> user will search the Internet for, say, "/lib/firmware/tigon/tg3.bin"
> The fact we are not explicitly reccomending nonfree software would not
> change the fact that we are telling the user to get a specific piece
> of nonfree software and put it in the right place. I do not see the
> difference would amount to much, after all.

It's the filename where the driver is asking for. If you would create
free firmware, you would need to use the same filename.

I expect people will search for "debian firmware" and they will find
nonfree.org. Or they have already heard about nonfree.org.

Normally I use the tar.gz with all the firmware. Only when there is a
problem, I check the filename.

> You could argue perhaps that, instead of giving the list of files, we
> should just obscure the fact (or just tell the user, "you seem to have
> a Tigon Ethernet card that requires nonfree firmware" and leave it up
> to them to find the name). I would not like that, but I'd expect the
> FSF to dislike it less :)

I would love to see the name of the networkcard, when that's easy to do.
But I like the name of the firmware file too.

Conclusion?

---------
| detect network hardware
|
| Some of your hardware needs firmware to operate. Debian only ships
| free firmware and probably there was no free firmware available for
| your hardware at the time this installer was made.
|
| The missing firmware files are: ......
|
| Firmware can be loaded from removable media, such as USB stick or
| floppy.
|
| [...]
--------

Still not sure this could be seen as recommending loading non-free
firmware.

It is OK for me, but I would prefer a text without the word "non-free"
in it.

With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.



-- 
Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen
http://www.vandervlis.nl