<div dir="auto">Maybe we can distribute a free and a nonfree version? More work but not so much<div dir="auto"> </div><div dir="auto"> </div></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 7:56 PM Alex Perez <<a href="mailto:aperez@alexperez.com">aperez@alexperez.com</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Answers inline James Cameron wrote on 1/17/2021 2:16 PM: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:03:10PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote: >> James, >> >> I booted up the latest Sugar-live-build image, which I'd downloaded from >> <a href="http://people.sugarlabs.org/~quozl/sugar-live-build/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://people.sugarlabs.org/~quozl/sugar-live-build/</a> and written to a USB >> stick, and booted it up in an HP-branded terminal from ~2012, which works >> perfectly fine with the latest Fedora SoaS images. > Thanks for testing. > >> Simply bundling the 'firmware-amd-graphics' package from the >> firmware-nonfree repo when you build the Live image would mean the image >> would work correctly on a vastly larger amount of hardware, out of the box. >> >> I would encourage you to take it one step further, and bundle the >> firmware-linux-nonfree metapackage, which will include firmware for things >> like Marvell wireless cards, Intel wireless cards, Atheros wireless cards >> (both USB and integrated/PCI/PCIe) > How will Sugar Labs comply with the licenses of these firmwares? > I'm afraid I don't understand what the concern is here. "Sugar" isn't subject to anything different from a licensing perspective, and therefore under no obligation to "comply" with anything: <a href="https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8849/does-distributing-gpl-software-along-with-binary-image-force-the-binary-image-to" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8849/does-distributing-gpl-software-along-with-binary-image-force-the-binary-image-to</a> All of the firmware images packaged by Debian in the non-free repo is freely redistributable, but not open-source. Fedora packages them, and includes them by default. Their LiveCDs/images work out of the box with them. Debian packages them, but does not install them by default, presumably out of ideological reticence. Since the goal of the Debian Sugar LiveCD should be to work, transparently, on as many computers out-of-the-box as is possible, this would seemingly be an obvious improvement. It's not possible to install from this LiveCD on a ton of "modern" hardware (the machine I'm using is from 2011) with the current state of bundled packages. If the goal is to only allow it to function fully on machines which are incapable of functioning fully without binary firmware blobs, I'd argue that this should be disclosed during the installation process. _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> </blockquote></div>