1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.DEVEL

  • =?UTF-8?Q?Reconsidering_Debian=E2=80=99s_Inclusion_of_Non-Free_F?= =?UT

    From pandya@disroot.org@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 7 22:00:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.project

    Dear Debian Community,

    I am Deep Pandya from Gujarat, India, and a long-time Debian user. I
    migrated from Windows to Ubuntu in 2013 and later explored the
    philosophy of the GNU project and the history of the free software
    movement. After trying GNU-endorsed Trisquel and PureOS, I finally
    landed on Debian (Stretch release) in 2019 and have been actively using
    it since (Buster, Bullseye, Bookworm). In 2020, I even wrote a blog
    post, "Reasons to choose Debian among GNU/Linux distributions" (https://lignuxblog.wordpress.com/2020/08/27/reasons-to-choose-debian/).
    Though I am not a programmer or software developer, I deeply care about Debian's values.

    In 2022, the General Resolution to officially include non-free firmware
    in the installation images shocked me because it signified a move away
    from Debian's conceptual roots.

    I fully believe in the GNU philosophy and its uncompromising commitment
    to freedom. Without that, we might not have had the Linux kernel under
    GPL or even the open-source movement. However, when it comes to
    practical usability, I acknowledge that some users--myself included--may
    need to install non-free firmware for WiFi, Bluetooth, or graphics
    drivers. But in the past, when I made such a compromise, I was aware of
    it. Debian used to perfectly balance software freedom and
    usability--until 2022.

    I understand that users need proprietary drivers to run certain
    hardware, and Debian should not ignore this reality. That is why I am
    not asking Debian to become a fully GNU-endorsed distro like Trisquel,
    which rejects all non-free software in every case. However, at the same
    time, Debian should not readily promote non-free firmware to the point
    where it loses its philosophical distinction and becomes just another convenience-focused distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint.

    [A Ruinous Compromise]

    After compromising a byte, our goal should be to find/develop libre alternatives so that, in the future, Debian users are less (bit)
    dependent on non-free firmware. Instead, we did the
    opposite--compromising more, from a byte to a kilobyte, for the sake of convenience. If this trend continues, what stops us from reaching a
    megabyte of compromise?

    Debian's official inclusion of non-free firmware contradicts its
    original philosophical values and social contract. Today, Debian
    includes a few non-free firmwares; tomorrow, it may include several; and
    the day after, many. If we normalize this now, how will future Debian developers uphold our values? This is the kind of ruinous compromise
    that GNU warns about: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html

    [A Call for Rethinking This Decision]

    I urge Debian to rethink its decision to officially include non-free
    firmware and correct the social contract. Instead of making non-free
    firmware the default, Debian should ensure that users consciously choose
    to install it while being made aware of the implications. As GNU
    explains: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/install-fest-devil.html

    Imagine hiding the "devil" by making it an official part of Debian.

    Debian is Debian--the "devil" should not be an official part of it.

    I would like to close with a modified stanza from the Free Software
    Song, which fits this situation perfectly:

    When we have enough free software, at our call, Debianers at our
    call,
    We'll kick out these dirty firmware ever more, Debianers ever more.

    I look forward to hearing thoughts from the Debian community on this
    important issue.

    Best Regards,
    Deep P. Pandya
    <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
    <p>Dear Debian Community,</p>
    <p>I am Deep Pandya from Gujarat, India, and a long-time Debian user. I migrated from Windows to Ubuntu in 2013 and later explored the philosophy of the GNU project and the history of the free software movement. After trying GNU-endorsed Trisquel and
    PureOS, I finally landed on Debian (Stretch release) in 2019 and have been actively using it since (Buster, Bullseye, Bookworm). In 2020, I even wrote a blog post, &ldquo;Reasons to choose Debian among GNU/Linux distributions&rdquo; (https://lignuxblog.
    wordpress.com/2020/08/27/reasons-to-choose-debian/). Though I am not a programmer or software developer, I deeply care about Debian&rsquo;s values.</p>
    <p>In 2022, the General Resolution to officially include non-free firmware in the installation images shocked me because it signified a move away from Debian&rsquo;s conceptual roots.</p>
    <p>I fully believe in the GNU philosophy and its uncompromising commitment to freedom. Without that, we might not have had the Linux kernel under GPL or even the open-source movement. However, when it comes to practical usability, I acknowledge that some
    users&mdash;myself included&mdash;may need to install non-free firmware for WiFi, Bluetooth, or graphics drivers. But in the past, when I made such a compromise, I was aware of it. Debian used to perfectly balance software freedom and usability&mdash;
    until 2022.</p>
    <p>I understand that users need proprietary drivers to run certain hardware, and Debian should not ignore this reality. That is why I am not asking Debian to become a fully GNU-endorsed distro like Trisquel, which rejects all non-free software in every
    case. However, at the same time, Debian should not readily promote non-free firmware to the point where it loses its philosophical distinction and becomes just another convenience-focused distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint.</p>
    <p><strong>[A Ruinous Compromise]</strong></p>
    <p>After compromising a byte, our goal should be to find/develop libre alternatives so that, in the future, Debian users are less (bit) dependent on non-free firmware. Instead, we did the opposite&mdash;compromising more, from a byte to a kilobyte, for
    the sake of convenience. If this trend continues, what stops us from reaching a megabyte of compromise?</p>
    <p>Debian&rsquo;s official inclusion of non-free firmware contradicts its original philosophical values and social contract. Today, Debian includes a few non-free firmwares; tomorrow, it may include several; and the day after, many. If we normalize this
    now, how will future Debian developers uphold our values? This is the kind of ruinous compromise that GNU warns about: <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html</a></p>
    <p><br /><strong>[A Call for Rethinking This Decision]</strong></p>
    <p>I urge Debian to rethink its decision to officially include non-free firmware and correct the social contract. Instead of making non-free firmware the default, Debian should ensure that users consciously choose to install it while being made aware of
    the implications. As GNU explains: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/install-fest-devil.html</p>
    <p>Imagine hiding the &ldquo;devil&rdquo; by making it an official part of Debian.</p>
    <p><strong>Debian is Debian&mdash;the "devil" should not be an official part of it.</strong></p>
    <p>I would like to close with a modified stanza from the Free Software Song, which fits this situation perfectly:</p>
    <p>&nbsp; &nbsp; When we have enough free software, at our call, Debianers at our call,<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; We'll kick out these dirty firmware ever more, Debianers ever more.</p>
    <p>I look forward to hearing thoughts from the Debian community on this important issue.</p>
    <p>Best Regards,<br />Deep P. Pandya</p>
    </body></html>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stephan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Verb=FCcheln@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 8 04:30:01 2025
    Am Freitag, dem 07.03.2025 um 23:05 +0530 schrieb pandya@disroot.org:
    I acknowledge that some users—myself included—may need to install non-free firmware for WiFi, Bluetooth, or graphics driver

    I understand that users need proprietary drivers to run certain
    hardware, and Debian should not ignore this reality.

    Drivers and firmware are different things. There are no drivers in non- free-firmware.

    Regards

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iHUEABYKAB0WIQRB1rjSpCJd8a7h6mNgNUJZCjx8YgUCZ8u3ywAKCRBgNUJZCjx8 Yu5XAQDy9PFG9uIJglyvzRu2qesMtKP8WP8MhEz7NRnnPgeZiQEAix4ZJsWe+YgB NYroqIy6pbDUv+GZle4ZKcjCYKGsMQ8=
    =+omz
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stephan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Verb=FCcheln@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 8 16:40:01 2025
    The ideal laptop in my dreams is running pure Debian on a RISC-V CPU,
    and all firmware from BIOS/EFI to peripheral devices has the source
    code available with a license which allows the free-software community
    to maintain it and remove undesired features.

    Unfortunately, even though we are getting closer every year, we do not
    have such hardware yet for the greater market for a reasonable price.
    If you want to run an Intel- or AMD-based laptop, you have no choice
    but to run their firmware, BIOS, EFI, microcode etc. More firmware is
    required for video and network devices. Unfortunately, you cannot run
    much of it without proprietary firmware, no matter if that firmware is
    on the Debian CD or not.

    Please note that firmware is something different than drivers. The best
    option that I see at the moment with commodity hardware is to buy
    hardware which does not require proprietary drivers. So at least the
    main CPU and memory is free from undesired code. This is much easier
    today then it used to be. I run my primary workstations without any
    proprietary driver, application or library for years.

    I really feel with you. I really wish there were more options without proprietary firmware. But I not see any options.

    The POWER9-based Raptor systems are advertised with free firmware, but
    they use AMD video cards and Broadcom Ethernet. So I think that what
    they mean by free firmware only applies to the BIOS/EFI. The coreboot
    and libreboot projects also need some blobs for Intel and AMD based
    systems.

    Microcode is fortunately a thing of the past. It is an idea from the
    1960's CISC design which is uncommon and unnecessary for RISC
    processors. So the most important goal is to get develop laptop with
    free EFI and free video firmware.

    Regards
    Stephan

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iHUEABYKAB0WIQRB1rjSpCJd8a7h6mNgNUJZCjx8YgUCZ8xjFwAKCRBgNUJZCjx8 YpFxAQCMcPPr6+ioAMxF2R75lH/auyKJLn4QWR7uNDpGg56TLAD/dky5Lv5nxNUR lIFLcWIK4K9G5rJiLsNV4OUza7y/kww=
    =QTpU
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stephan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Verb=FCcheln@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 8 23:40:01 2025
    Am Samstag, dem 08.03.2025 um 14:51 +0100 schrieb Johannes Schauer
    Marin Rodrigues:
    If you don't trust the vendor, then it makes no difference whether or
    not new official firmware/microcode can be uploaded/flashed or not.
    If you don't trust the vendor, then the initial microcode that came
    with your device might already be doing things that go against your interests.

    The trust relationships are more complex than you put it. You have to
    trust the chip vendors, the OEMs, the merchants, the delivery company,
    the hotel room service etc. etc.
    Since Snowden, we know that custom hardware bugs installed by anyone in
    the supply chain are a real thing. The recommendation for risk groups
    like journalists and lawyers nowadays is to buy random hardware from
    the store and pay with cash.
    However, I agree with you that we do not have a lot of options when it
    comes to affordable consumer hardware. Even the various projects which
    try to create openness still depend on proprietary firmware.
    The situation is improving compared to what it used to be, but we still
    have a long way to go.

    Regards
    Stephan

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iHUEABYKAB0WIQRB1rjSpCJd8a7h6mNgNUJZCjx8YgUCZ8zFVAAKCRBgNUJZCjx8 YvtTAQC10t2CZ1KF6SwVPqRomdFSpx8OFCV5HR4g/g/WqklDJAEAlDV+vEZiztZE MJP8Dn8eq0OtkSdodSTqCQCCsmoCmAY=
    =smno
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ansgar =?UTF-8?Q?=F0=9F=99=80?=@21:1/5 to Simon Josefsson on Sun Mar 9 15:10:01 2025
    Hi,

    On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 14:19 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
    Our experience seems to differ, I now run Trisquel and Guix on many of
    my home and machines and servers.  For my uses they all work without non-free firmware.  You have to be careful about what hardware you buy,
    and chose your use-cases.  And, yes, I use modern hardware -- i9-14900K
    on desktop, i7 1260P and Ultra 155H in my two most used laptops,
    ARS-111M-NR and Talos II on the server side, as well as a bunch of aging
    Dell R630's.

    This class of hardware *requires* non-free firmware. Lots of it, at
    every system layer.

    You just choose to use the non-free firmware version that happens to
    come pre-installed, but it's still non-free firmware just as a pre-
    installed Microsoft Windows is still non-free software, even when you
    just use it as a "firmware" to boot a firmware-free Linux in Windows'
    subsystem for Linux. (Which the FSF might arguably call "free" then...)

    Ansgar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ansgar =?UTF-8?Q?=F0=9F=99=80?=@21:1/5 to Simon Josefsson on Sun Mar 9 17:00:01 2025
    Hi,

    On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 15:58 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
    Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> writes:

    Hi,

    On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 14:19 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
    Our experience seems to differ, I now run Trisquel and Guix on many of
    my home and machines and servers.  For my uses they all work without non-free firmware.  You have to be careful about what hardware you buy, and chose your use-cases.  And, yes, I use modern hardware -- i9-14900K on desktop, i7 1260P and Ultra 155H in my two most used laptops, ARS-111M-NR and Talos II on the server side, as well as a bunch of aging Dell R630's.

    This class of hardware *requires* non-free firmware. Lots of it, at
    every system layer.

    Agreed.

    So we agree that pretty much all hardware requires non-free firmware
    these days.

    However none of that hardware require me to load non-free
    firmware from my operating system, which is my point.  That situation is sufficient for me to accept to use the hardware and install an operating system built without non-free software on it.

    What is the point of this then?

    Does it help users to replace/rewrite non-free firmware if it is not
    supplied by the operating system? Or enable the user to not use non-
    free firmware? I don't think so.

    The only other reason to do this seems to be free/libre-washing by
    pretending the non-free firmware is not there... But I don't think that
    is something useful to spend resources on (but if people want to do so
    for unofficial installer images, they are of course free to do so; as
    far as I understand the FSF is in favor of free/libre-washing).

    Or is there some other reason to want to do this?

    Ansgar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ansgar =?UTF-8?Q?=F0=9F=99=80?=@21:1/5 to Pirate Praveen on Mon Mar 10 10:30:01 2025
    Hi,

    On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 13:27 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
    On 3/9/25 9:20 PM, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
    What is the point of this then?

    If I understood the argument of FSF correctly, the point is, having the
    same freedom as the hardware manufacturer to modify or not modify.In
    case of hardware without firmware (or fused firmware that cannot be
    modified further), this argument has some merit, I think. But if it
    needs firmware to function, I think argument is hardware manufacturers having more power than you to modify firmware.

    No, the hardware manufacturer has more power with preinstalled firmware
    as well: they can more easily provide updates for on-board ROMs as
    well. (You can ship ROMs just like a USB media for OS-provided firmware
    images; it is just a different media.)

    It is all about where you want to draw the line between the hardware and software. [...] So for hardware we are willing to give more
    power to manufacturers, but not for software.

    So we just declare software as hardware and suddenly it is "free"?
    Cool, then the preinstalled Windows is free (in the FSF "respects your
    freedom" sense) too if I don't install updates. :-)

    Does it help users to replace/rewrite non-free firmware if it is not supplied by the operating system? Or enable the user to not use non-
    free firmware? I don't think so.

    In a weird way, if you don't update the firmware, then no one has the
    ability to modify.

    Who is "you"? The user can choose what firmware version they want to
    install with OS-supplied firmware. If they don't like a newer version,
    they can just provide an older one to the hardware.

    Pretty much all firmware in non-free has no provisions that you have to
    use the newest version as that would be a problem for Debian to
    organize...

    So how does this change depending on where the firmware is stored?

    Basically hardware manufacturers are withholding code that they could
    give you easily, at least from the point of view of actually making use
    of it.

    They can also give you the hardware schematics easily so you can
    install it in a FPGA instead of their provided chips. (And what when
    the firmware is programming for a FPGA?) That would make modifying the
    hard- and firmware easier ;-)

    The actual hardware design may not be as useful like firmware as
    modifying that will still require ability to manufacture, but for
    firmware you already have the ability to use modified version.

    Debian doesn't decide what is free or not free based on what the user
    is capable of doing. For some experienced hardware developer, modifying
    the hardware schematics can be easier than modifying software code.

    Otherwise we should factor in the programming language used in free vs
    non-free which would make most shell code non-free as it is too hard to
    modify in a safe way. ;-)


    The only other reason to do this seems to be free/libre-washing by pretending the non-free firmware is not there... But I don't think that
    is something useful to spend resources on (but if people want to do so
    for unofficial installer images, they are of course free to do so; as
    far as I understand the FSF is in favor of free/libre-washing).

    Or is there some other reason to want to do this?

    In an academic way, this gives user same freedom as the hardware manufacturer - no one is able to modify the hardware (if you never
    update the firmware yourself). So the hardware manufacturer don't have control over your hardware, after you received it.

    If you give root to the hardware manufacturer to manage firmware files
    on your computer, then they have control. Firmware updates don't
    magically arrive on your hard disk unless you either install them or
    someone sneakily breaks into your computer.

    From a purely academic way, we might also discuss hidden wireless
    backdoors in hardware with pre-installed firmware. There pre-installed
    firmware is even worse as it is harder to find backdoors if you can't
    even look at the proprietary binary code.

    So the value of this is, looking at your ability to easily modify, do we have the freedom to modify?

    So not providing firmware via the operating system gives users the
    freedom to modify firmware? I don't follow.

    Ansgar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ansgar =?UTF-8?Q?=F0=9F=99=80?=@21:1/5 to Simon Josefsson on Mon Mar 10 11:20:01 2025
    Hi,

    On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 10:57 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
    I don't think the above fully resolve my concerns though.  The mere
    presence of official documented hooks to load non-free software is problematic from a freedom perspective.

    Maybe a "free" version of Debian could be provided with all of /usr/share/doc/*, /usr/share/man/* and similar removed? And of course
    any references to FSF-provided documentation...

    But I guess this also answers my other question: removing references to non-free firmware to make them disappear is clearly freewashing.

    "Ignorance is strength^Wfreedom."

    Ansgar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stephan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Verb=FCcheln@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 10 12:50:01 2025
    Am Montag, dem 10.03.2025 um 13:27 +0530 schrieb Pirate Praveen:
    Basically hardware manufacturers are withholding code that they could
    give you easily
    It is often not that easy because of stupid laws, for example laws that
    require vendors of radio devices to restrict the frequency range. That
    is often used as an excuse to not publish sources.

    But I totally agree that this is a deficiency. Non-free firmware should
    not exist.

    Regards

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iHUEABYKAB0WIQRB1rjSpCJd8a7h6mNgNUJZCjx8YgUCZ87QGgAKCRBgNUJZCjx8 Yn9xAP91HAqpvXHwX+fwRYpV4ntTaAcvIWRtAUgti3Wn6vprdQD/ViIZtGzDiS39 4wOpX883XSNU6zgVprJkjNL90SkZlA8=
    =ZYWa
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)