kernel-libre (hopefully 100% Free) for Fedora 8 and rawhide

[Chris Snook]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2008, Chris Snook <csnook at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> Err...  This would mean that whoever distributes the kernel binaries
>>> would be required to ship the corresponding sources containing
>>> non-Free Software, which is precisely the sort of thing I'd like to
>>> avoid, such that I and others who refuse to distribute non-Free
>>> Software can promote Fedora at least to some extent.
> 
>> Pardon my ignorance, but I honestly don't see a risk in shipping
>> *sources* which contain hex-coded firmware blobs that have been
>> licensed for distribution,
> 
> This is not about the risk.  This is about not distributing non-Free
> software.  For me, it's not a matter of licensing, not a matter of
> license compatibility.  It's a matter of not supporting the
> distribution of non-Free Software, no matter how hidden it is, or how
> important it is for some.
> 
> I'm not taking away anyone's choices.  I'm just adding means for
> people to run and distribute Fedora while being more assured they're
> not using or distributing any code they got from Fedora that is
> non-Free Software.

But I maintain that it would be more effective if you would do it in a 
fashion that would be more conducive to getting people who are less 
aware of these issues to actually use your work.  Most people won't 
notice what you're doing, and I think that harms your mission.

>> If you'd like that incentive to carry any weight, perhaps you should
>> write a patch that has a chance of getting accepted into Fedora
>> proper.
> 
> A patch won't fix this.  People keep on adding firmwares to the
> upstream kernel.  It has to be a continous monitoring and maintenance
> process.  It's painful, I know.  I'm willing to do it, to keep a 100%
> Free kernel.  I'm willing to do it for myself, even if it's not
> integrated in Fedora.

The upstream kernel is already moving away from in-tree firmware.  I 
think if you did this in an extremely visible way, by breaking out the 
non-free blobs from the core Fedora kernel that millions of people use, 
it would be a greater service to this effort.

> Now, if Fedora doesn't take it, it will say something about Fedora's
> stance towards freedom.  I know I differ from Fedora in this regard
> already, so that's no big deal.
> 
>> Personally, I just want to install the package called "kernel".
>> Unless I have an absolutely compelling reason, I'm not going out of my
>> way for anything else, be it "kernel-libre" or "kernel-firmware".
> 
> I respect your position, even though I disagree with it.  That's one
> of the reasons why I've started this as a separate kernel-libre
> package, rather than asking Fedora to drop all the non-Free firmware
> in the kernel and outside, out of coherence with its stated mission.

I'm a contributor to the upstream kernel, and I oppose in-tree blobs. 
My point is that if *I* am lazy about this, we can expect the 
overwhelming majority of users to be lazy about it as well.  You've 
designed this in a manner that makes it useful only for preaching to the 
choir.  If that's your goal, so be it.  I think that your idea is very 
useful, and if implemented slightly differently, it could reach a lot 
more people and have a much greater impact.

> However, some people find the existence of non-Free Software a
> sufficiently compelling reason to want a 100% Free kernel, and then a
> 100% Free distro.  I wish Fedora could be it.  If it doesn't want to
> be, that's fine, there's always BLAG.
> 

I think you'll accomplish more by pushing Fedora to be more Free than by 
starting your own fork.  That's your prerogative, but you've clearly put 
a lot of thought into this, and it would be a shame if all that effort 
had to be duplicated to push Fedora (more gradually) in the same direction.

-- Chris