Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

In an ideal world the ideal system runs well. But in a not so ideal 
world you need the non-free firmware at times.

I like the FSF but I and many people probably are not going to throw 
away our computers for the sake of an important missing firmware.

Debian offers both options, completely free and non-free bits when 
needed. Let's keep it that way.

On 9/3/22 11:02, Onsemeliot wrote:
> I don't really know why this is discussed here but I will add my two
> cents to it also because it is.
>
> I stuck with Debian even if the FSF (which I am a supporter of) doesn't
> endorse it for the reason that it provides non-free options on its
> servers. The important thing for me is that Debian stays free by
> default.
>
> Adding non-free software should at least come with a very clear
> explanation that doing so means to lose the core freedoms. I don't mind
> making it easier for people who don't know their way around yet. In my
> opinion referring to a derivative distro with non-free sources like
> Ubuntu would just work as well as providing a non-free option in Debian
> directly.
>
> Debian doesn't need to be everything for everyone. I went for Debian
> when I started using GNU/Linux because it seemed to be the best de-
> central implementation of the free software vision and the base for so
> much else. There are many convenient options for people using hardware
> that doesn't have free drivers yet.
>
> In my opinion the Debian project doesn't need to include any non-free
> software at all. There are plenty of projects doing exactly that
> already and only very few take a firm stand when it comes to core
> values the free software movement is build upon. The Debian project
> could be the biggest beacon for freedom if it focused on doing the best
> possible with what fully free software allows.
>