On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our
> installers by default.

I would like to see essential "installation-related" firmware available
on the installer media if it is properly redistributable.

To elaborate:
- Only firmware without which the installition *cannot* proceed are
covered.
Disk and RAID firmware can be downloaded from the installer, but
making network firmware unavailable renders the installer useless
to the user.
Having to use VGA, VESA, or fbdev is not covered.

- Non-free drivers are not covered.

- I am *not* endorsing any changes to the defaults that the installer
proper has, or to the settings of the installation.

- "Available on the media" technically includes "have a udeb in some
folder", and if that folder can be discovered I think that's enough.

- Only firmware subject to a license allowing *anyone* to redistribute
it, including on commercial media, is permitted.

- In my humble opinion, it would be nice if the user had to manually
enable said frmware (and could do so after checking that a lack of
firmware caused a lack of working networking).

Now, some comments on other comments...
* If you're sending messages from your Windows phone, we already
know where you stand. No need to repeat it three times.
* The question is whether to change what's available on the installer,
not whether to install nonfree firmware on systems by default.

...and on Daniel's later proposal:
* A useful tool would be one that recurses through 'lsmod' output,
using modinfo -F firmware and a file->package lookup to determine
what packages are relevant.
Conceptually, this *could* determine whether you're dealing with
networking hardware.
Additionally, one could scan for 'modalias' entries that are unclaimed,
and find the required module/firmware.

* Ideally, any change in installer behavior would be limited to advising
the user about missing firmware and loaded drivers that require non-free
firmware.
I'd want it to say something along the lines of this (sample based on
my currently non-operational X100e):

 The following drivers that are loaded use non-free firmware:
 DRIVER        PACKAGE
 r8192se    firmware-realtek
 ...
 Some loaded drivers request uninstalled firmware:
 radeon        firmware-linux-nonfree
 Some drivers have not been loaded, and require unavailable firmware:
 ...
 If you wish to obtain full functionality from these devices, it may
 be necessary to enable non-free packages.
 In some cases, drivers will work without the firmware.
 You may prefer to not use the hardware in question due to the
 proprietary licensing or for other reasons.
                   [Continue]

The last sentence is an abbreviated version, but should give you
the picture.
The point is to give users the knowledge that "this hardware would
need such-and-such", without glossing over the fact that there are
downsides to selecting it.

This should be information presented before the user selects repos
to enable.

HTH,
Isaac Dunham