On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:41:26PM -0300, hellekin wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 11:37 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> >
> > about licensing purity.
> >
>
> and:
>
> > But whatever you do, don't paternalize the users. There's nothing more
> > infuriating than an infantilizing message in the way of what you want to
> > do.
> >
>
> and:
>
> > Your users chose Devuan: they already have made a good choice.
>
> and:
>
> > do not disrespect them by force-feeding them moralistic crap they don't
> > care about and that will only antagonize them.
> >
> *** I must I was almost agreeing until "moralistic crap". This is your
> opinion, and in my own, an unfounded one. What we're talking about here
> is about technology, not moralistic anything.
>
> The technology we're building is one that empowers the user, and it is
> arguable whether considering the imposition of freedom-restricting
> technology empowers the use or not. The case is hardware that the user
> buys and that refuses to work without secret code from the company.
> Would you buy a car if the seller would tell you that you will need to
> use their own specific fuel and tires, and only drive highways? Of
> course not, because you buy a mean of transport, not an universal ticket
> for free transportation.
>
> If Devuan is to replace Debian in its role of a foundation for free
> software distribution, then it needs to be closer to Debian, not to
> Ubuntu. And since we have the opportunity to discuss the matter, I'm
> for a "core" distribution of free software, that enables anyone to build
> upon that core, including softening its edges and allow it to enable
> self-rendition to proprietary software.
>
> This core distribution should fly high the colors of software freedom,
> because nobody else will do. And a fundamental software freedom is you
> can use it for any purpose, including making yourself a slave of
> corporations. But that should be a choice, and one that the
> distribution does not encourage by default.
>
> Now, the base installer is such a vector of individuation, as Debian 8
> demonstrated by using it to install systemd. Systemd is free software,
> but we don't like it to be installed by default. Now we would frown at
> it and happily include non-free software in our base installer? I
> really don't see the point. Again, that people buy hardware requiring
> non-free software to run is a problem, but that problem does not need to
> be ignored and dismissed, it needs to be confronted and fixed.

It can be quite difficult to find out whether a piece of hardware
you're considering buying requires nonfree drivers.

-- hendrik