Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel
>  free to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
>  introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to
>  include external links to more extensice body of supporting material
>  in the paragraphs you send me, but please keep theese paragraphs
>  short and to the point.
> 
> I certainly don't want to include hundreds of lines of
>  additional material directly on the vote page.  Please indicate if
>  the content is preambulatory or postambulatory.
> 
> manoj

hi Manoj, ...

I wonder where Frederik's proposal fits in this ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones

[Anibal Monsalve Salazar]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> == BEGIN PROPOSAL =
> 
> The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works
> that they use on their computer; about giving users the same
> information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As
> such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the
> availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright
> holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users.
> This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack
> of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright
> holders.
> 
> Different types of works have different forms of source. For some
> works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be
> digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was
> preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
> longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
> possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical
> aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running
> upon ones computer.
> 
> Recognizing this, the Debian Project:
> 
>   A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian
>  system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of
>  whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary
>  processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is,
>  works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream
>  developer would actually use for modification.
> 
>   B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute
>  the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would
>  actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed
>  in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be
>  made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project
>  resources.
> 
>   C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or
>  software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose
>  source is not available by making such works available in
>  non-free and providing project resources to the extent that
>  Debian is capable of doing so.
> 
>   D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is
>  not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for
>  modification so that purchasers of their hardware can
>  exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their
>  hardware.
> 
> 
> 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio
>recordings.
> 
> 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to "technically possible"
>or "possible for some party" as opposed to "legally possible for
>Debian". We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to
>require the distribution of physical objects.
> 
> = END PROPOSAL ===

Seconded.

Anibal Monsalve Salazar
-- 
http://v7w.com/anibal


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones

[Don Armstrong]

Because there appears to be some residual confusion[1][2][3] about
what I actually proposed and its content, here is the proposal as it
currently stands. The proposal is only the content between BEGIN
PROPOSAL and END PROPOSAL.

== BEGIN PROPOSAL =

The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works
that they use on their computer; about giving users the same
information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As
such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the
availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright
holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users.
This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack
of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright
holders.

Different types of works have different forms of source. For some
works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be
digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was
preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical
aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running
upon ones computer.

Recognizing this, the Debian Project:

  A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian
 system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of
 whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary
 processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is,
 works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream
 developer would actually use for modification.

  B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute
 the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would
 actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed
 in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be
 made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project
 resources.

  C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or
 software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose
 source is not available by making such works available in
 non-free and providing project resources to the extent that
 Debian is capable of doing so.

  D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is
 not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for
 modification so that purchasers of their hardware can
 exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their
 hardware.


1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio
   recordings.

2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to "technically possible"
   or "possible for some party" as opposed to "legally possible for
   Debian". We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to
   require the distribution of physical objects.

= END PROPOSAL ===

If necessary, consider this an amendment under A.1.2; seconders, you
may object to the "changes" under A.1.5. (If you decide to re-second
this proposal, please only second the part between the === lines.)

I've also attached the suggested content for the v.d.o webpages for
this option in the interest of completeness.


Don Armstrong

1: 
http://cvs.debian.org/webwml/english/vote/2006/vote_004.wml?root=webwml&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00228.html
3: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00235.html
-- 
CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US
forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade 
teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested,
Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and
a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear
and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of maths 
instruction.

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu

 Don Armstrong
  [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]



   René van Bevern
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  
   Frank Küster
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  
   Pierre Habouzit
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  
   Alexander Wirt
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  
   Kari Pahula
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  
   Anibal Monsalve Salazar
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  



 Choice 1.
  The actual text of the resolution is as follows:

DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works

The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify
the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same
information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As
such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the
availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a 

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Debian Project Secretary]

Hi,
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:05:32 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
>> to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
>> introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to
>> include external links to more extensice body of supporting
>> material in the paragraphs you send me, but please keep theese
>> paragraphs short and to the point.

> Here's a patch to include the rest of the resolution which I
> proposed.  [I don't believe it requires additional explanatory
> text.]

Sorry, no can do. That is not the text that was proposed and
 seconded. The vote.d.o page is being changed to actually reflect the
 full text of the proposals. Any changes to the proposed and sponsired
 texts need a formal change request, and would reset the discussion
 period.

Having been accused of abusing my powers of office, I am going
 to stop doing so forthwith and stick to the constitutional rules that
 govern my office. Also, in order not to wilfully violate the powers
 of my office, I am pulling in my horns and doing less, just in case
 taking initiative leads to more abuse of power.

manoj
-- 
If the rich could pay the poor to die for them, what a living the poor
could make!
Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


pgpNIvKQaEzx2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
> to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
> introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to
> include external links to more extensice body of supporting material
> in the paragraphs you send me, but please keep theese paragraphs
> short and to the point.

Here's a patch to include the rest of the resolution which I proposed.
[I don't believe it requires additional explanatory text.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
"You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember
when you are old."
 -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar p413)

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu
? add_rest_of_programmatic_works_proposal.diff
? index.en.html
? suppl_001_stats.en.html
? suppl_001_stats_detailed.en.html
? suppl_002_debate.en.html
? suppl_002_stats.en.html
? suppl_002_stats_detailed.en.html
? vote_001.en.html
? vote_002.en.html
? vote_003.en.html
? vote_004.en.html
? platforms/93sam.en.html
? platforms/ajt.en.html
? platforms/andreas.en.html
? platforms/ari.en.html
? platforms/ballombe.en.html
? platforms/index.en.html
? platforms/jeroen.en.html
? platforms/krooger.en.html
Index: vote_004.wml
===
RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/vote/2006/vote_004.wml,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.3 vote_004.wml
--- vote_004.wml18 Sep 2006 23:32:30 -  1.3
+++ vote_004.wml19 Sep 2006 04:04:08 -
@@ -62,8 +62,27 @@
   the mailing list archives for details.
 
 DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
-The Debian Project:
-
+
+The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify
+the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same
+information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As
+such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the
+availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright
+holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users.
+This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack
+of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright
+holders.
+  
+ Different types of works have different forms of source. For
+some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be
+digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was
+preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
+longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
+possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical
+aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running
+upon ones computer.
+   

Recognizing this, the Debian Project:
+
   
  
   Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel
 free to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
 introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to
 include external links to more extensice body of supporting material
 in the paragraphs you send me, but please keep theese paragraphs
 short and to the point.

I certainly don't want to include hundreds of lines of
 additional material directly on the vote page.  Please indicate if
 the content is preambulatory or postambulatory.

manoj
-- 
The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal. -- Mark Twain
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
>> >> itself?
>> 
>> > It is a preamble, and a preamble is a votable component of a
>> > resolution.
>> 
>> Nope. The resolution is what ew resolve to do, and is the only
>> actionable part; the preamble is something that lays down the
>> groundwork, and is part of the support ensemble that lrsfd [rp[;r
>> to sgree to resolve to do whatever.

> But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
> non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
> how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part
> of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made
> available to voters.

You see me censoring the voting list or the archives?

> It's up to the proposer of a resolution and those who second the
> resolution to determine what is the content of the resolution. No
> one else has the power to determine that.

Again, you see any censorship going on?

>> The courts look at the GPL -- not the preamble to the GPL. When you
>> derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble -- and you
>> modify and rename the rest to create your own license.

> The court is free to examine the preamble to the GPL if it so
> desires; it's appropriate to do so especially in cases where the
> language of the licence is not manifestly clear.

As are the voters. They can look at anything they want to --
 Am I stopping them now?

>> Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
>> rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.

> They can be as much a part of a resolution as any other bit is.

> Indeed, a proposer needs to be capable of making a resolution
> contain anything they want to, from preambles to postambles to
> footnotes and graphics. It may not be particularly sane of them and
> those who second it to do so, but it's not the bailiwick of the
> Secretary to adjust the content of a duly seconded resolution.

Where did you see me adjusting contents? Not that I have
 access to the mailing list filters anyway to do that.

> In the cases where what is the actual resolution is in doubt, the
> Secretary can of course make their best guess, but when the
> proposers and seconders inform the Secretary specifically what the
> resolution is, they control. [Of course, the Secretary can make
> suggestions and propose amendments, just like any other developer
> can.]

> The most the Secretary can do is exert power under A.2.3 and declare
> that an amendment belongs on a separate ballot; but that's not
> (yet?)  at issue here.

The secretary has to run the election, and decide on the
 ballot. The ballot does not contain the various resolutions -- or
 preambles, polstambles, forewords, afterwords, abstracts, opinions
 po;;s, supporting documentation, or a whole sleew of stuff the voters
 need to make an informed decision.

The mailing list archives are, after all, open to everyone.

manoj
-- 
We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. Dwight
D. Eisenhower
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> > For the record, this is not the full text of the votable resolution
> > which I proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory text, not
> > rationale, and was submitted as part of the resolution itself. 

> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
>  itself?

It is a preamble, and a preamble is a votable component of a resolution.

Or perhaps you think no one ever intended to ratify "We the people"?

-- 
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/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
> >> itself?
>
> > It is a preamble, and a preamble is a votable component of a
> > resolution.
> 
> Nope. The resolution is what ew resolve to do, and is the only
> actionable part; the preamble is something that lays down the
> groundwork, and is part of the support ensemble that lrsfd [rp[;r to
> sgree to resolve to do whatever.

But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on how
the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part of
the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made
available to voters.

It's up to the proposer of a resolution and those who second the
resolution to determine what is the content of the resolution. No one
else has the power to determine that.

> The courts look at the GPL -- not the preamble to the GPL. When you
> derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble -- and you
> modify and rename the rest to create your own license.

The court is free to examine the preamble to the GPL if it so desires;
it's appropriate to do so especially in cases where the language of
the licence is not manifestly clear.

> Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
> rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.

They can be as much a part of a resolution as any other bit is.

Indeed, a proposer needs to be capable of making a resolution contain
anything they want to, from preambles to postambles to footnotes and
graphics. It may not be particularly sane of them and those who second
it to do so, but it's not the bailiwick of the Secretary to adjust the
content of a duly seconded resolution.

In the cases where what is the actual resolution is in doubt, the
Secretary can of course make their best guess, but when the proposers
and seconders inform the Secretary specifically what the resolution
is, they control. [Of course, the Secretary can make suggestions and
propose amendments, just like any other developer can.]

The most the Secretary can do is exert power under A.2.3 and declare
that an amendment belongs on a separate ballot; but that's not (yet?)
at issue here.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars
has to be the HP-48 series of calculators.  They'll run almost
anything.  And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into
the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator.
 -- Jeff Dege, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>> > For the record, this is not the full text of the votable
>> > resolution which I proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory
>> > text, not rationale, and was submitted as part of the resolution
>> > itself.

>> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
>> itself?

> It is a preamble, and a preamble is a votable component of a
> resolution.

Nope.  The resolution is what ew resolve to do, and is the
 only actionable part; the preamble is something that lays down the
 groundwork, and is part of the support ensemble that lrsfd [rp[;r to
 sgree to resolve to do whatever.

> Or perhaps you think no one ever intended to ratify "We the people"?

I can't help it if a bunch of dead white men got is all wrong
 a couple of hundred years ago :)

Look, I pledge allegiance to the flag and the constitution of
 the US, not to the preamble and other related material to the
 constitution of the US.

The courts look at the GPL -- not the preamble to the
 GPL. When you derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble --
 and you modify and rename the rest to create your own license. 

Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
 rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.

manoj
-- 
The fact that boys are allowed to exist at all is evidence of a
remarkable Christian forbearance among men.  -- Ambrose Bierce
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>> > For the record, this is not the full text of the votable
>> > resolution which I proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory
>> > text, not rationale, and was submitted as part of the resolution
>> > itself.

>> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
>> itself?

> It is a preamble, and a preamble is a votable component of a
> resolution.

Nope.  The resolution is what ew resolve to do, and is the
 only actionable part; the preamble is something that lays down the
 groundwork, and is part of the support ensemble that lrsfd [rp[;r to
 sgree to resolve to do whatever.

> Or perhaps you think no one ever intended to ratify "We the people"?

I can't help it if a bunch of dead white men got is all wrong
 a couple of hundred years ago :)

Look, I pledge allegiance to the flag and the constitution of
 the US, not to the preamble and other related material to the
 constitution of the US.

The courts look at the GPL -- not the preamble to the
 GPL. When you derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble --
 and you modify and rename the rest to create your own license. 

Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
 rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.

manoj
-- 
The fact that boys are allowed to exist at all is evidence of a
remarkable Christian forbearance among men.  -- Ambrose Bierce
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> For the record, this is not the full text of the votable resolution
> which I proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory text, not
> rationale, and was submitted as part of the resolution itself. 

Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
 itself? I am not preambles to the resolution, post-ambles to the
 resolution, abstracts, fore-words, after-words, rationales,
 supporting documents, opinion polls, arguments for and against, and
 any of the other important material you will find on the mailing list
 archives.

manoj
-- 
"Are you sure you're not an encyclopedia salesman?" No, Ma'am.  Just a
burglar, come to ransack the flat." -- Monty Python
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Josselin Mouette]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:42:14PM -0500, Debian Project Secretaru wrote:
> ##
> ##
>GR Amendment 3:
> ##
> ##
> 
> From: Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:37:20 +0200
> 
>  Bad signature from AD295AE1D75F8533 Josselin Mouette
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>  Special exception to DFSG #2 for firmware
> ,
> |  THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
> |  
> |   1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system
> |  to our users according to our Social Contract and the
> |  DFSG; and 
> |  
> |   2. encourages authors of all works to make those works
> |  available not only under licenses that permit
> |  modification, but also in forms that make such
> |  modifications practical; and 
> |  
> |   3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works
> |  such as images, video, and fonts to be licensed in
> |  compliance with the DFSG without requiring source code for
> |  these works under DFSG #2; and 
> | 
> |   4. determines that as a special exception to DFSG #2, the source
> |  code for device firmwares contained in the kernel packages will
> |  not be required as long as there are no other technical means to
> |  install and run the Debian system on these devices. 
> `

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was mine, and I still wish to submit 
this proposal.

(First signature was made with evolution, let's try again with mutt.)
- -- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFDw27rSla4ddfhTMRAgASAKCHjRo2KQLzwrJRu28I+GE+tRbB1ACfToX0
7mp8on88G9hGHMkhFUeENhs=
=51Rm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free firmware and d-i

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 06:36:16PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> What I not have see is a voting option like
> 
>  [ ] Just document how to (re)build with non free drivers.
> 
> I would like to see such an option. My main reason for it is
> my main reason for investing time in Debian:  Free Software

Bah, if you don't want to use non-free firmwares, then don't use it, it is not
because they are on the cd that you are forced at gun-point to install them :)

As said, the important part of this is to be didactical and inform the user
about the current state, and let him the ultimate choice, just like we ask the
user (or used to ask) if he wanted the non-free apt sources or not.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Pierre Habouzit]

Le lun 18 septembre 2006 20:42, Debian Project Secretaru a écrit :
> GR Amendment 3: Special exception to DFSG #2 for firmware
>
> From: Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:37:20 +0200

I second that proposal made by josselin mouette again, and affirm that 
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was mine.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpkKLOUQZbfI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:42:14PM -0500, Debian Project Secretaru wrote:
> ,
> | THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
> | 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to
> |our users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
> | 2. encourages authors of all works to make those works
> |available not only under licenses that permit modification,
> |but also in forms that make such modifications practical; and
> | 3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works
> |such as images, video, and fonts to be licensed in
> |compliance with the DFSG without requiring source code for
> |these works under DFSG #2; and 
> | 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device
> |firmware shall also not be considered a program.
> `

For the record, this is not the full text of the votable resolution which I
proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory text, not rationale, and was
submitted as part of the resolution itself.  This is mostly irrelevant now
since it's been withdrawn, but the proposers of the other resolutions may
want to confirm that the full text of their resolution has been cited.  In
particular, I believe Josselin's proposal was initially submitted as an
amendment to mine changing only the last point, which would logically mean
this preambulatory text is missing from his as well, leaving him with a GR
that begins with the silly opening phrase "The Debian project therefore".

-- 
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

The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Debian Project Secretaru]

Hi,

I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
 archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
 before us. As I see it; there are two solid amendments, and an iffy
 third one, and a slew of proposals that have not yet gathered enough
 seconds to make it to amendment status, and thus on the
 ballot. Please verify that I have gotten the texts of the various
 amendments right.

Why do I say that the third one is iffy? Well, because there
 have been a number of messages whose signatures did not verfity(I use
 mostly the debian keyrings rsync'd daily from keyring.debian.org for
 official business).

I am attaching my findings to date at the end. The GR
 amendment 3 is in the worst case: I could not verify the signature of
 the proposer, and two of the seconds. With that. there are not enough
 signatures I can verify on this proposal.

Of course, the signature verification problem can be just at my
 end, so I would appreciate it if people either sent in a resigned
 message; or enough signed attestations to the signatures come in that
 I can be assured the problem is local at my end.

The following signatures are the ones I could not verify:

--
GR Amendment 1: (DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works)
Seconds C):
From: Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:23:56 +0200

 Bad signature from BC6AFB5BA1EE761C Pierre Habouzit
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
--

--
GR Amendment 2:

Seconds A):
From: Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:41:28 +0100

 Bad signature from 1D7365A755815D42 Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Seconds H)
From: "Guilherme de S. Pastore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:20:31 -0300

 Bad signature from 18953F2C73B02592 Guilherme de S. Pastore
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
--

--
GR Amendment 3: Special exception to DFSG #2 for firmware

From: Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:37:20 +0200

 Bad signature from AD295AE1D75F8533 Josselin Mouette
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Seconds A):
From: Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:49:22 +0200

 Bad signature from BC6AFB5BA1EE761C Pierre Habouzit
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Seconds E):
From: Clément Stenac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:23:13 +0200

 Bad signature from AD26ED82A6C805B9 Clément Stenac
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
--
--
Proposal 4:
From: Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:03:47 +0100

 Bad signature from 1D7365A755815D42 Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
Proposal 7:
From: Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch 
release
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:47:18 +0200

 Bad signature from 826FCAC21E880A84 Frans Pop (Debian)
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 --



pgpwRObCUAeCQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
##
##
   GR Amendment 1:
##
##
From: Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian,
 and required for programmatic ones 
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:51:51 -0700
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 Good signature from 81C08922808D0FD0 Don Armstrong
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
,
| The Debian Project:
| 
|   A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian
|  system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of
|  whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary
|  processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is,
|  works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream
|  developer would actually use for modification.
| 
|   B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute
|  the form that th

Re: non-free firmware and d-i

[Geert Stappers]

Hello People at -vote,


At the mailinglist -boot was this message:

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 11:35:51AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > 
> > d-i already supports driver disks, see floppy-retriever and the code in
> > hw-detect to prompt for a driver floppy if necessary hardware is not
> > detected.
> 
> And apparently net-retriever handles this correctly too.
> 
> > Even extending this to support USB and CDs does not cover all cases,
> 
> But should be done.  :-)  Is this not supported yet?
> 
> > my  
> > outline in the post above includes some points where this approach will
> > fail.
> 
> If the machine needs firmware in order to load the installation media under
> Linux, this cannot be solved except by making a non-free installer image.

[1]

> It is a theoretical impossibility, because in this case the firmware must
> be loaded by something outside the installer proper.  In fact, in most
> cases the only things loaded in this form are the kernel and the initramfs
> (loaded by the BIOS) and so to deal with this case the firmware must be
> included in one of them.  (In the initramfs case with loadable firmware
> this further means that udev must run in the initramfs, which is not
> ready.)
> 
> So just *forget* that case, since it's not solvable.  If there exists a form
> of installation media which does *not* need firmware loaded in order for
> Linux to use it, then put the firmware on that media, load it, and
> continue.
> 
> Consider this case: the solvable case.  What actual problems can you 
> identify with this case?  It appears to be 90% implemented.  I see *no* 
> places where this approach will fail, excepting the impossible case, and
> you haven't identified any such places either.  Your outline includes no
> points where it will fail except the impossible case: I counted.  :-)
> 


I'm not able to dive into the discussion of the GR for non-free firmware.

Things I have see of it, are "solutions".

What I not have see is a voting option like

 [ ] Just document how to (re)build with non free drivers.



I would like to see such an option. My main reason for it is
my main reason for investing time in Debian:  Free Software

Spending time on non-free software, can't be spend on free software.

Those who need the non-free firmware can use the free software to build
the parts they need. Making integration of non-free drivers easy
will help that there will be such drivers much longer.
The problem of non-free drivers is a problem of the hardware manufactors
who didn't yet find a bisnesmodel to cope with free software, it is
surely not a problem for Debian.

For those who think it is Debian problem: It is allready fixed.
Sources to (re)build Debian software are allready available,
just include the non-free parts.


People of Debian-Vote@lists.debian.org:

Please add a votable option like
 [ ] Just document how to (re)build with non free drivers.



Cheers
Geert Stappers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Not subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and BCC-ing -boot to move this
GR proposal discussion to -vote.

> this cannot be solved except by making a non-free installer image.
[1] So what? Allow people to make non-free installer images.
Just avoid that Debian is providing non-free stuff.
Create awareness about non-free software issues.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:09:14AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I think you're wrong here, unless you're using an unusual definition
> of "distributable".  The usual definition used by debian-legal is "We have
> explicit legal permission to distribute it."  If you were right, we wouldn't 
> have 46 undistributable files in Debian's Linux kernel packages today.
> 
> Should Debian release with those files (again)?  This is a very, very
> important question.  Currently Debian is on track to release with 46
> undistributable files.

Indeed, but then, there are few issues to consider about this :

  - in some cases, like the acenic driver, the original copyright hholder as
well as the current copyright information is lost forever in some box
during one of the mergers. Likelihood of someone actually showing up and
saying this code belongs to them, and they can clarify the licencing, or
sue us, is very very small.

  - in other cases, the original author is distibuting this sourceless
material themselves under the GPL, clearly a mistake or omission, which
they would be happy to fix, as the broadcom and qlogic case have shown.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR

[Nathanael Nerode]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments
>>> need to be in fast, though.
> 
>> Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please?  "Amend the
>> constitution" is not descriptive enough.
> 
> Since there is only one issue where voting is open, anyone who
>  can't figure out what is being voted upon probably should not be
>  voting. Especially since there was a link to the vote page.
> 
> Does anyone themselves have had problems figuring out what
>  this was all about, or is it merely hypotheticals?

It was pretty clear, but "Amend the Constitution (assets handling)" would
have been better.  Just in case someone mixed this up with some other 
constitutional amendment.

-- 
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]

Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etchrelease

[Nathanael Nerode]

Frederik Schueler wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:59:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> is to drop support (in whole or in part) for
>> Broadcom NX2, Sun Cassini(+),

Both nondistributable firmware anyway

look, what list should this discussion be on?  Can someone forward this to
the right list if they ever figure it out?

>> Intel PRO/100 (although some of those 
>> chips are also supported by the unaffected eepro100 driver),
> 
> eepro100 is scheduled for removal upstream, not an option.

Given that the e100 driver functions without firmware in earlier versions
of the Linux kernel, I strongly suspect that most e100 cards do not
need firmware loaded.  Tearing out the firmware and the code loading it is
likely to be an acceptable solution for most users.  Since the firmware is
nondistributable, it seems to me to be the only acceptable solution.

>> and (maybe) five more members of the
>> QL2xxx family.
> 
> The firmware blobs are deprecated in 2.6.17 and have been removed in
> 2.6.18-rc. You already need the non-free package containing the
> firmwares to run these controllers with 2.6.17 and later, no need to
> remove the drivers.

Rocking.

-- 
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]

Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release

[Nathanael Nerode]

Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:47:18AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> The project acknowledges that a lot of progress has been made with regard
>> to the removal from the distribution (main) of "software" that could be
>> considered non-free given the current wording of the Social Contract.
>> However, in some cases for valid reasons, this work is not finished and
>
> 
> I suggest striking the above phrase, which adds nothing of substance to
> the resolution.

I assumed that it implied that in some cases it was not for valid reasons.

Yes, definitely adds emotive content for no good reason.

-- 
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]

Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release

[Nathanael Nerode]

Note: for purposes of discussion, I will use the term "firmware" to refer to
the binary executables loaded into various peripherals by the Linux kernel.
Properly speaking these are *not* firmware -- if they have to be loaded at
every boot, they're not firm, they're just software -- but that's another
matter, and since everyone is saying "firmware" and I don't have a better
term, I'll use it.

Frans Pop wrote:


> I will start with an alternative GR proposal based on the one from aj.

It looks good.


> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
>> social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
>> reconsider whether the change we made in 2004 was the right one. So I'd
>> like to propose the following course of action for consideration:
> 
> I rather like the basic idea behind this proposal and I applaud the
> personal commitment the DPL is willing to make on this issue,

Yes, applause!

> however I 
> feel it is wrong to do things in this order: we should not rush a change
> in the SC in order to get a release out on schedule only to have to
> discuss another change in the SC immediately after the release.
> 
> I would suggest to not decide on a), b), c) and d) now but rather shelve
> those until after the release and instead do something like:
> 
> The project acknowledges that a lot of progress has been made with regard
> to the removal from the distribution (main) of "software" that could be
> considered non-free given the current wording of the Social Contract.

You mean "...that is non-free according to the Social Contract."

I tire of hearing the completely invalid claim that the Social Contract
as written, now or before, can possibly allow non-free programs in main.

> However, in some cases for valid reasons, this work is not finished and
> requiring this to be finished before the release of Etch would result in a
> serious delay of the planned release.
> 
> There are also indications that a significant group of people within the
> project feels that the current Social Contract does not meet the best
> interests of the project in that the current wording is too restrictive
> and
> that a limited and conditional inclusion/support  of some types of
> "software" should be possible. Example: support for loading sourceless
> firmware during installation.
> 
> The Debian Project resolves that:
> 
> (a) The inclusion in main of sourceless firmware and support in Debian
> Installer is not a release blocker for the release of Etch.
> 
> (b) For the release of Etch, the Release Managers are given discretion
> to waive RC issues in other cases where the letter of the Social
> Contract is currently not being met, provided there is no
> regression relative to the Sarge release

FYI:

This will require at a minimum (assuming undistributable firmware is allowed
in general) removal of lumps of hex from 13 files in the kernel.  The
'new' ones are noted at ldoolit's page:
http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html

If undistributable firmware is not allowed in etch, then this will require
the transfer of the tg3 and qla2xxx firmware to non-free; the other 'new'
ones are all non-distributable anyway.

Frankly, I've been waiting for the tg3 firmware to be (re-)removed from
Debian's kernel before I do any additional work, as a sign of "good faith".

> and that waivers are done 
> consistently and with proper consideration of past resolutions
> (e.g. GDFL) and work already done on other (comparable) packages.
> 
> (c) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader shall:
>   i.   ensure that the Debian community has a good understanding
>of the technical and legal issues that prevent the Debian
>Free Software Guidelines from being applied to logos

"We can't get legal advice from a trademark lawyer, and some people think 
that keeping logos non-free will somehow help make up for that."

That's basically it for logos.  If someone pays for a trademark lawyer to
consult with Debian, that would be a great benefit all around.

>and 
>firmware in a manner that meets the needs of our users;
>   ii.  ensure that project resources are made available to
>people working on addressing those issues;

To repeat:
Frankly, I've been waiting for the tg3 firmware to be (re-)removed from
Debian's kernel before I do any additional work, as a sign of "good faith".

>   iii. keep the Debian community updated on progress achieved
>in these areas.
> 
> (d) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project as a whole shall
> reopen the question of which commitments should be codified in the
> project's Social Contract. This shall include both an online
> consultation wi