Re: With the current resolution under vote, tg3 WILL HAVE TO GO, this is against what we want ...
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:43:28AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061011 10:19]: > > Which means a few things. For one, we cannot add into the etch kernels any > > of > > the firmware which where stripped for sarge, and second, we will have to get > > ride of all the firmware which are illegal to distribute (we agreed to get > > ride of this one), but also those who are de-facto under the GPL, which we > > agreed to keep. In particular this will mean that tg3 has to go, others > > probably too. > > We have to remove illegal stuff anyways, there is no way around it. Can > you please drop that point in the discussion. Well. The statement of position of the kernel team, said we would keep them. You where invited to attend to that irc meeting, but didn't show up. So, what are you now saying, as RM ? That you will do stuff explicitly contrary to the resolution ? > Reading the resolution, it clearly tells us the stuff which has a > DFSG-conformant license, e.g. BSD, is ok, independend of source. Unless Indeed, but tg3 is not under such a licence, and thus has to go by the resolution just passed. You also don't respond to the claim about "no regression from sarge". > we know otherwise, I would assume that whatever was put in the source by > the upstream author, is meant to be source if licenses requires a > source. This is bullshit and putting your head in the sand, and we all know that. The analysis by Larry explicitly listed only those firmwares for which it was clear that "no sane person would or could write those hexdumps directly by hand", and thus there is source > So, I only think we have to strip of: > a) stuff illegally to distribute (there is *nothing* which helps you > around on that); Well, this means the sourceless GPLed drivers have to go, we have no legal way of distributing them, since the GPL is void for them. > b) stuff where the author doesn't want it to be DFSG-free; Indeed. But this is explicitly *NOT* what the kernel team wanted, and *NOT* what was hinted at in the short title of the ballot. So, where do we stand, with a resolution the RMs have already said they will not respect, with a wording which is misleading, and no clear understanding of what the voters actually wanted. A complete mess, we are probably worse off now than before the vote, and calling me to shut up will not help you in this. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: With the current resolution under vote, tg3 WILL HAVE TO GO, this is against what we want ...
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061011 10:19]: > Which means a few things. For one, we cannot add into the etch kernels any of > the firmware which where stripped for sarge, and second, we will have to get > ride of all the firmware which are illegal to distribute (we agreed to get > ride of this one), but also those who are de-facto under the GPL, which we > agreed to keep. In particular this will mean that tg3 has to go, others > probably too. We have to remove illegal stuff anyways, there is no way around it. Can you please drop that point in the discussion. Reading the resolution, it clearly tells us the stuff which has a DFSG-conformant license, e.g. BSD, is ok, independend of source. Unless we know otherwise, I would assume that whatever was put in the source by the upstream author, is meant to be source if licenses requires a source. So, I only think we have to strip of: a) stuff illegally to distribute (there is *nothing* which helps you around on that); b) stuff where the author doesn't want it to be DFSG-free; Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: With the current resolution under vote, tg3 WILL HAVE TO GO, this is against what we want ...
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:56:00PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 10:15:16AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > I want to bring your attention, especially those of maks and kyle and a few > > others who vehemently protested the removal of firmwares from the debian > > kernel. > > well. results are out. :/ Indeed, but i don't personally consider them binding, given the high irregularity of the vote. This would have been different if more people like you had seconded the other proposal early enough, or at least responded to my call for comment here last thursday. So, you know who you have to blame for this :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: With the current resolution under vote, tg3 WILL HAVE TO GO, this is against what we want ...
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 10:15:16AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > I want to bring your attention, especially those of maks and kyle and a few > others who vehemently protested the removal of firmwares from the debian > kernel. > well. results are out. :/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With the current resolution under vote, tg3 WILL HAVE TO GO, this is against what we want ...
Hello, ... I want to bring your attention, especially those of maks and kyle and a few others who vehemently protested the removal of firmwares from the debian kernel. The current proposal, which Frederik has accepted, and Manoj, wearing his double proposer-secretary hat, has hurryied forward, and we thus have only a few days before it is effective, namely until sunday 15. Anyway, this proposal says : We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Sarge release in Etch We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG. Which means a few things. For one, we cannot add into the etch kernels any of the firmware which where stripped for sarge, and second, we will have to get ride of all the firmware which are illegal to distribute (we agreed to get ride of this one), but also those who are de-facto under the GPL, which we agreed to keep. In particular this will mean that tg3 has to go, others probably too. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANTED. And i don't understand why Frederik has accepted this proposal, and not even seconded the more mature proposal at : http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00183.html Nor why any of you have not taken the time to look at the current situation and second it. I know we are all bored to death over this, and some of you may be over angry that i again snapped at Frans, but please wake up, and don't let a vote be happeneing, which everyone wants to get over with, which will not result in what we really wanted to achieve. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
