Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Who is confident of this, and why? I'm not confident of this at all; I'm >> not sure that the idea of forcing sourceless firmware out of main is even >> an idea that the majority of developers agree with,
Then do as Thomas suggests below and propose the honest GR. >> and Joey Hess has >> pointed out to us reasons why providing separate free/non-free install >> media might be a strategically poor use of our time in the *long term*, It won't be. Providing the ability to use "add-on" install media is very much a useful feature in the long term, particularly for (wait for it...) "added-value" redistributors. (Or perhaps you didn't mean add-on install media, and instead meant one monolithic "free" disk and one monolithic "non-free" disk. Indeed, that is not the preferred solution.) >> even if the work of splitting out this firmware proved manageable It is. >> and >> there were sufficient volunteers to do this work. There are. > So this gives me pause. > > I've been instructed that it's ok to vote for one of these > resolutions, because it's only a way to get etch out the door, and we > can come into real compliance with the Social Contract for etch+1. > > I have expressed some skepticism, being rather convinced that the > actual facts are that there are people who are happy to have the > kernel simply *never* come into compliance with the DFSG, for whatever > reasons, and that they have been dragging their feet in bringing it > into compliance. > > One of the people hinting at this has been Steve, who basically said > to me recently that for some packages, they would get booted from the > release for violating the DFSG, and for other packages, we just wink > and nod. > > Now we have it flat out: Steve thinks perhaps we will simply never > bring the kernel packages into compliance with the DFSG. > > So let's not hear about etch vs. etch+1; let's not hear about some > special thing for just this release. > > This is sounding like the behavior of the US Congress, which likes to > continually extend copyrights for one "limited" term after another, > thus producing the reality that copyright terms in the US are now > infinite. > > Just so, the claim that we are making temporary concessions so that we > can release is a cover for the real facts: some people simply do not > think the DFSG operates as an absolute bar to the inclusion of > non-free software in Debian. > > So, rather than dance around redefining "software" and telling us that > this is a just-this-once special-exception just-for-etch (never mind > that it is the second "just this once" special exception), can you > please propose the DFSG or SC amendentment you really want, the one > that clearly and unmistakably says "the following items can be > included in Debian even though they are not free software", and drop > the 100% promise that the Social Contract has always known? If I ever become a DD, I was going to propose GRs to this effect, probably one for each category. (There are only about four or five categories.) Even though I would vote *against* such GRs. (Well, with the exception of the license texts one. I'd vote for that one.) Because I'd prefer an up-or-down, yes-or-no, clear decision to the wink-and-nod business. While I'm not a DD, if anyone wants help drafting a GR to amend the Social Contract to *clearly allow* some particular thing which I consider non-free, I will be happy to help. I want such an amendment to be as crystal clear as possible, so that Debian is not deceiving anyone. (Unfortunately, I fear that perhaps some people really *like* the hypocrisy: such a person would want to keep non-free firmware in main but would not want the Social Contract to say so. I hope there are no such people but sometimes I fear that there are.) -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]