On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:17:56 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:57:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > Probably, but then choice 1. of the ballot currently under vote >> > should have had 3:1 supermajority also, which added to misleading >> > wording of the short title compared to the actual content of the >> > proposal, cast some serious doubt as to the validity of the vote >> > being currently held. >> >> Nope. Choice 1 (I am assuming you mean the gr_firmware's "release >> etch despite firmware issues option", though that is not at all >> clear) in no way requires anything that violates the DFSG or the >> social contract, so it does not need the super majority. > Well, it : > 1. allows for releasing firmware binaries under the GPL lacking > propper sources. Wrong. It only allows us to distribute drivers that upstream is implying we have sources for -- and we have no proof that the sources are not in the preferred form of modification. Guessing that the preferred form of modification is not proof. {SNIP a whole lot of hostile text} manoj -- The greatest disloyalty one can offer to great pioneers is to refuse to move an inch from where they stood. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]