All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Debian goes non free!
Times are changing. Debian adds non free option in its Debian 12 release AKA Bookworm. Here's the article.
Debian, a popular upstream Linux distribution and the base on which Ubuntu is made, has voted to allow non-free firmware packages in its official install and live media. In the past, non-free firmware was available via a section of the Debian archive. The non-free firmware typically contains firmware which doesn't meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). For example some Wi-Fi adapters require non-free firmware in order to work.
On Debian's General Resolution: non-free firmware page, officers, leaders and members of the many Debian teams voted on a series of proposals for including non-free firmware on official Debian install media.Choice 1: Only one installer, including non-free firmware Choice 2: Recommend installer containing non-free firmware Choice 3: Allow presenting non-free installers alongside the free one Choice 4: Installer with non-free software is not part of Debian Choice 5: Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer Choice 6: Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, keep both installersOf the six choices presented, choice 5 was selected as the winner. The proposal, presented by Russ Allbery, sees a change to the Debian Social Contract, specifically a change to point 5 which originally read.
"Works that do not meet our free software standards"
"We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists)."
The change to the social contract sees the following line appended to point 5
"The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that requires such firmware."
In Allbery's proposal, they state "We will include non-free firmware packages from the "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official media (installer images and live images). The included firmware binaries will normally be enabled by default where the system determines that they are required, but where possible we will include ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel command line etc.)."
So what does this mean to the end user? Users installing Debian to their machines will now see that more hardware is supported "out of the box" during the install process, as the non-free firmware will be enabled by default, should the system determine that they are required. But should you deem them unnecessary, there will be a means to disable the use of non-free firmware during the boot process.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/debian-includes-proprietary-code
Comments
I'm happy about this as a laptop owner, I do like shit just working in Linux.
For the purists, they probably use something else anyway so not likely to create butt pain for them.
Strictly speaking, this is simply a practical decision to make installing Debian easier for end-users
I use Nginx mostly so it dosen’t affect me.
It is sad that you (LET) just copy-paste articles from other websites.
Are you doing it with their permission?
you did the same here:
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/181755/kernel-6-0-has-finally-been-released
This is bullshit. It should NOT be enabled by default. There should be some consent: "your device needs proprietary software to work smoothly, would you like to enable this install?"
Enabling closed software by default is how maybe they plan in going on the path of Ubuntu Pro. Maybe Debian wants money from partners with closed-source software.
This is the News section
For those of you who are hopelessly outraged, here's the list of the GNU/Linux distributions that the FSF currently recommends:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html#for-pc
To the extent that you've even heard of any of these distributions (!), I suspect that the best choice among them is Trisquel, which has been around for a while
Shame they did not go with 6th choice. Is this due to sheer amount of work supporting both would create?
That doesn't give you the right to violate others' copyright by copying their articles 1-1.
And potentially damage their SEO because of this duplicate content with the canonical tag set to this page.
@jbiloh
I have placed the article in the link and referenced it. People do that everyday, you think they have to ask for permission? You think they effect SEO??
You think If you tag Jon, you will achieve what exactly?
You ever been to school?! Whenever you copy something is perfectly legal and correct, as long as you post the reference from where the information is taken. In this case the moderator posted a direct link to article and website. This is perfectly legal, as the poster did not provide the information under the assumption that he/she created it, but instead is showing publicly the source of it.
He thinks Jon will prefer ethics over LET SEO.
I've also quoted the text.
This thread got derailed quick.
There's always someone who's mission is that exactly... I think we'll get over it.
on fire 🔥🔥
When we talk DMCA, the fair use policy gives you the right to quote a small part of an article. Copying a whole article for commercial use is copyright infringement.
I just thought he might want to know since it is him that can get in trouble because of this.
Meanwhile... Debian goes non-free.
There is a big different between quoting rules in school and DMCA/copyright laws.
He used double quotes and also mentioned the source. The fact that he did not use quote as per Vanilla forum features is irrelevant. So...
EDIT: this topic is about Debian. This is not about how to use a quote in a Vanilla forum to satisfy woke culture.
Calm down.
As long as the link to the original article is provided/mentioned, then I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I do it too sometimes with my “DP’s CPN (Copy & Paste News)”.
I remember back in days I have issue when installation debian wheezy on my laptop, Installation trying get networkmanager and failed because my Wi-Fi need non-free firmware which not included and tutorial said I need burn CD included non-free firmware which very annoying because I don't have any LAN Cable on my home.
AFAIK, they included for make certain driver works. If you driver okay for use free driver, It would be skip using non-free
Well, once more Debian has saved mankind from a danger.
Now we have the better Ubuntu without that bloat and snap shit.
I want 50/50 @Arkas
Sheer amount of work? Probably not. Just disable the programs in the Build CI.
Goes non-free implies a different thing, i.e. it might cost money.
IMO, this was needed, many newbies I know were put off by that, "I removed Debian because the wi-fi wasn't working and youtube was choppy".
There should be a warning at the installation time. "You seem to have hardware which requires a closed-source proprietary driver to work smoothly. This might expose you to surveillance or other attacks. Would you like to install the closed source (better performance but unknown behaviour) or the open source one (better security but possible performance issues) ?"
I think that you're overreacting a bit. For the purposes of LET, as long as the original text is properly quoted and the source of the text is given, it's not a big deal. It's just a news item that is being relayed
In contrast, if (for example) a book or a significant part of a book were copied into posts on LET, I would agree with you
When you went to school, did you pay attention? Were you asleep during copyright lessons? I am not an expert on copyright law, but here is what I learned in school:
In the United States, it is a violation to publish someone else's copyrighted work without permission. Putting the article inside quotation marks, citing the source, and posting a link to the original article does not get you a free pass. There are a variety of carve-outs and exceptions under fair use. You can request permission, too. Who knows? ... They might say yes.
In my non-expert opinion, Arkas' post above is a copyright violation in the US. It does not qualify under fair use. I wonder whether Tom's Hardware will actually do anything about it. I doubt it.
Under "safe harbor" laws, LowEndTalk itself is probably not liable for Arkas' post. If Tom's Hardware notifies LowEndTalk of the violation, then LowEndTalk is obligated to take it down. (Note: I assume that LowEndTalk is covered under US law.)
This is the reason why people ask for DMCA-ignored providers here. They want to find a provider from a non-US jurisdiction with different laws and/or enforcement policies. In some cases, they may be violating the law there anyway, but they don't care if it is not enforced.
Here is some homework for @default:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Title_II:_Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act
Tom's Hardware statement about copyrights (see the "Content" paragraph near the top):
https://www.futureplc.com/terms-conditions/
This isn't "woke", by the way.
Jon is going to turn up at your house and mess up your shoe rack. Resulting in untold anguish and pain for your....... erm crime? 🤣
Which one should I get for nvidia drivers 👀👀