Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release
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: snip I will start with an alternative GR proposal based on the one from aj. It looks good. snip 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 with Debian developers, users, Debian derivatives and the free
Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release
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 Etchrelease
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: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR
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 Etch release
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: non-free firmware and d-i
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
The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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 the copyright holder or upstream developer would |
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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: non-free firmware and d-i
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
-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: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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. /p h2DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works/h2 -h3The Debian Project:/h3 -ol + +pThe 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./p + + pDifferent 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. + h3Recognizing this, the Debian Project:/h3 +ol style=list-style-type: upper-alpha li p Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
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] http://www.debian.org/%vote/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpNIvKQaEzx2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
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
