Debian Bug report logs - #484365
suggestion: switch to linux-libre in main

Package: linux-2.6; Maintainer for linux-2.6 is Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>;

Reported by: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:39:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: maximilian attems <max@stro.at>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#484365; Package linux-2.6. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: suggestion: switch to linux-libre in main
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:36:56 +0000
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: normal


In case you're not aware, the linux-libre project grew out of
gNewSense's efforts to publish 100% Free Software extracts from the
kernel distributed by kernel.org, later on picked up by BLAG and, more
recently, by FSF Latin America.  You might want to use it, instead of
kernel.org's kernel, to get closer to compliance with your policy of 
shipping only Free Software in main.

Whether you move the non-Free kernel you currently ship to non-free, or
simply remove it, is something you should discuss and decide on your
own, but I thought I'd remind you of both possibilities.

linux-libre is currently available at
http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/

There's a README in there.  We're considering creating a freed-ebian
repository with linux-libre-based kernels for Debian GNU/Linux in there,
but we hope that, knowing how seriously you take your social contract
and the freedom of your users, I thought you might want to preempt
that move.

In case you'd like to make such a move using an older version of Linux
than those we've already deblobbed, I'd be happy to assist.  Just let us
know at linux-libre@fsfla.org.

Hope this helps, and that Debian one more time sets an example of
promoting the Free Software philosophy and caring about users' freedom.

Best regards,




Reply sent to maximilian attems <max@stro.at>:
You have taken responsibility. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 484365-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: maximilian attems <max@stro.at>
To: 484365-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: suggestion: switch to linux-libre in main
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:05:11 +0200
first of all such suggestion are better discussed on
mailing list see http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel

> In case you're not aware, the linux-libre project grew out of
> gNewSense's efforts to publish 100% Free Software extracts from the
> kernel distributed by kernel.org, later on picked up by BLAG and, more
> recently, by FSF Latin America.  You might want to use it, instead of
> kernel.org's kernel, to get closer to compliance with your policy of 
> shipping only Free Software in main.

why did none of your effort got productive and turned into upstream patches?
nor do you seem to work on relicensing firmware.

> Whether you move the non-Free kernel you currently ship to non-free, or
> simply remove it, is something you should discuss and decide on your
> own, but I thought I'd remind you of both possibilities.
> 
> linux-libre is currently available at
> http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/

why does it not incorporate the upstream posted request_firmware()
patches from David Woodhouse? or did i oversee them!?!

closing as you can only be kidding to consider yourself as appropriate
linux-2.6 upstream source.

-- 
maks




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#484365; Package linux-2.6. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 484365@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
To: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>, 484365@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#484365: suggestion: switch to linux-libre in main
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:16:19 +0100
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Package: linux-2.6
> Severity: normal
> 
> 
> In case you're not aware, the linux-libre project grew out of
> gNewSense's efforts to publish 100% Free Software extracts from the
> kernel distributed by kernel.org, later on picked up by BLAG and, more
> recently, by FSF Latin America.  You might want to use it, instead of
> kernel.org's kernel, to get closer to compliance with your policy of 
> shipping only Free Software in main.
> 
> Whether you move the non-Free kernel you currently ship to non-free, or
> simply remove it, is something you should discuss and decide on your
> own, but I thought I'd remind you of both possibilities.

What are the specific instances of non-free software you found in
Debian's kernel?

> linux-libre is currently available at
> http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/
> 
> There's a README in there.  We're considering creating a freed-ebian
> repository with linux-libre-based kernels for Debian GNU/Linux in there,
> but we hope that, knowing how seriously you take your social contract
> and the freedom of your users, I thought you might want to preempt
> that move.

I didn't find documentation about what was actually removed.


Thiemo




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#484365; Package linux-2.6. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 484365@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>
To: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Cc: 484365@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#484365: suggestion: switch to linux-libre in main
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:05:35 -0300
On Jun  3, 2008, Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> wrote:

> What are the specific instances of non-free software you found in
> Debian's kernel?

I ran deblob-check on
http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.25.orig.tar.gz
that I found referenced as the source tarball for some linux-2.6
Debian package on some debian.org web page.

Then I ran deblob-check with -C, and it printed a few megabytes.

Then I deleted both the tarball and the output.

> I didn't find documentation about what was actually removed.

You can find deblob-check as well as the much smaller deblob scripts
for each upstream release at
http://fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/software/linux-libre/scripts/

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member       ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#484365; Package linux-2.6. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 484365@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>
To: 484365@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#484365 closed by maximilian attems <max@stro.at> (Re: suggestion: switch to linux-libre in main)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:28:29 -0300
On Jun  3, 2008, owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) wrote:

> first of all such suggestion are better discussed on
> mailing list see http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel

I'm not really interested in taking part in a debate.  I was merely
offering a suggestion in the form of a bug report, as suggested by a
friend of mine who's involved in Debian's development.  I'll let him
know the procedure he suggested was inappropriate and suggest him to
follow that route.  Thanks, and sorry if this caused any trouble.

> why did none of your effort got productive

AFAICT we have produced a working 100% Free kernel, something that
Debian has wished for for several years.  Our goals are different from
those of kernel upstream or Debian, that appear to feel a need to help
hardware vendors keep their customers helpless and dependent.
Catering to this kind of issue is not part of the charter of this
project.

> and turned into upstream patches?

upstream wouldn't take patches that remove the non-Free Software, and
we already have the kernel we need.  It wouldn't make sense for us to
work more to advance goals that are actually opposite to ours.

> nor do you seem to work on relicensing firmware.

That's also not part of the project charter.  The goal of the project
is to ensure there are well-maintained 100% Free Linux tarballs for
anyone who wishes to take freedom seriously.  Work on getting firmware
relicensed as Free Software is certainly good work to do, but it's not
part of this project.

> why does it not incorporate the upstream posted request_firmware()
> patches from David Woodhouse? or did i oversee them!?!

Because it doens't incorporate any patches whatsoever.  It tracks
upstream.  If David's patches are merged, our scripts will be adjusted
to remove the non-Free bits from wherever they land, if they remain.
If they aren't, why bother?, they don't make any difference for
someone who does not want to install non-Free Software on their
computers anyway, or for distros that don't want to be part of the
distribution of any non-Free Software to their users.  These are the
use cases linux-libre is designed to serve.

> closing as you can only be kidding to consider yourself as appropriate
> linux-2.6 upstream source.

I'm not kidding, but it's not really upstream.  You can regard it as a
filter midstream that keeps downstream from polution thrown in the
river by upstream.  We don't mess with the precious water, we just
remove the pollutants.

Now, if you prefer to keep on deviating from your own policies and
counting on exceptions to ensure main can keep on containing non-Free
Software, that's certainly your decision.  If you'd rather duplicate
this work yourselves, it might make sense to join forces, for I take
it you've been trying to fix this problem for a very long time.

I offered help because I thought Debian might be interested,
considering its policies and all.

Of course, you don't have to trust us right away.  You can keep an eye
for a while and see how quickly our releases come out after an
upstream release, and how easily patches for upstream still apply.
I've been doing that for freed-ora for a while, it's really a
no-brainer.

And then, should we fail you, you might as well just go back to your
beloved non-free upstream :-)

Your call...

Best regards, and keep up the good work,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member       ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}




Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:36:43 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Fri Apr 18 14:13:52 2014; Machine Name: beach.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.