On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:12:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > I would like to see some language to the effect that we make the > exception for firmware only in the cases of data that use the moral > equivalent of the kernel load_firmware interface, so that it's clear we > aren't talking about the sort of completely non-free things like that > adsl driver with a userspace binary library or the drivers from > sangoma's site.
First of all, I'm not asking for an exception; I'm asking the project to confirm whether "programs" should be understood to include firmware. Only if the project votes this GR down would it be time to consider making exceptions (which would definitely require 3:1 majority), I think. I would welcome any suggestions about how to make the language of the resolution clearer on this point. That said, then, I'm not sure there's any value in worrying over wording to make it clear that userspace binary libraries aren't covered. AFAIK, no one is arguing that such a library isn't covered by DFSG #2 because it's not a program; it's clear to me that it is part of a program when used, and is covered by DFSG #2. If someone did try to claim it wasn't covered by DFSG #2, we would have to amend the DFSG to close whatever loophole they were using, and I don't think it's worth speculating about what that loophole would be before someone actually tries it, so I don't see any point in tying this GR to a DFSG amendment unnecessarily. OTOH, if you think people -- either Debian developers or others in the community -- will be confused into thinking this GR means closed userspace tools are also ok, then by all means please tell me where you think the ambiguities lie so that we can eliminate them. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
