Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-10-11 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
 i now release the call for vote, and ask for a vote to be held with the
 original proposal from Frederik, which has had enough seconds since August 31.

As a point of order, the original proposal from Frederik was superseded once
he accepted Manoj's amendment, and several of the seconders of the original
proposal also seconded the amended proposal, indicating their acceptance of
the amendment.  Under the constitution, this means the proposal must get a
new proposer and the seconds must be re-established in order to have a
formal proposal.

-- 
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: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-10-11 Thread Sven Luther
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:20:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
  i now release the call for vote, and ask for a vote to be held with the
  original proposal from Frederik, which has had enough seconds since August 
  31.
 
 As a point of order, the original proposal from Frederik was superseded once
 he accepted Manoj's amendment, and several of the seconders of the original
 proposal also seconded the amended proposal, indicating their acceptance of
 the amendment.  Under the constitution, this means the proposal must get a
 new proposer and the seconds must be re-established in order to have a
 formal proposal.

Yeah, i know, Manoj told that. I wonder why it is not possible to keep the old
proposal ongoing, the same way a seconder can retake a proposal the original
proposer retire, not sure this makes sense.

That said, i consider that this proposal currently under vote is not a good
one, that i have been wronged when i agreed to delay the original call to vote
on the DPLs urging, since it is clear that all the effort i have done is now
showed in the trashcan, since we are voting on Manoj's proposal, which will
mean we have to get ride of a number of firmwares, among them the tg3
firmware, which is contrary to the result of the kernel team position
statement and will.

Frederik i don't understand why you did let that happen, and why you didn't at
least second the proposal we worked on together.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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



Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-29 Thread Sven Luther
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:02:13PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
 Hi,
 
 On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 06:40:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
   issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
  
  So, what progress has been made?
 
 For example:
 
 - the firmware_class infrastructure has been added in more than 100 
   drivers (as of 2.6.17)
 
 - the qla2xxx firmware has been dropped from the kernel sources, and is
   now shiped on ftp.qlogic.com
 
 - new drivers for devices requiring a firmware to be uploaded during
   initialization are included without embedded firmware (for example the
   ipw3945 driver, or aic94xx which has just been added in 2.6.19-rc)

Broadcom and qlogic where approached from the legalese angle, to clarify their
implicit-GPL-but-no-source licence over firmware, which made those firmwares
undistributable. Everyone laughed at us over this, even upstream, but we got
a serious and interested response from the vendors, and after longish
discussions they provided new clarified licence. We intent to do more of this
later on, but with the pressure of the release out of the way, and it is stuff
that cannot be rushed upstream.

Also, we prefer to concentrate for now on technical issues, using our DD time
to make sure etch's kernel are as bug free as possible, and solving tedious
licencing issues is secondary at best.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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



Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-29 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:02:13PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
 Hi,
 
 On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 06:40:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
   issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
  
  So, what progress has been made?
 
 For example:
 
 - the firmware_class infrastructure has been added in more than 100 
   drivers (as of 2.6.17)

So, does that mean that the firmware for those devices isn't part of the
kernel source, but lives in non-free somewhere?  Or what exactly does
this mean?

 - the qla2xxx firmware has been dropped from the kernel sources, and is
   now shiped on ftp.qlogic.com
 
 - new drivers for devices requiring a firmware to be uploaded during
   initialization are included without embedded firmware (for example the
   ipw3945 driver, or aic94xx which has just been added in 2.6.19-rc)

So those drivers should go to non-free?


Kurt


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



Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-28 Thread Sven Luther
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 04:56:40PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
 On 2006-09-27, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
  2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
  issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
 
  So, what progress has been made?
 
 All firmwarez have been readded to the debian package.

But with this amendment, they will have to go again anyway, so ...

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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



Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:48:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 04:56:40PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
  On 2006-09-27, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
   issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

   So, what progress has been made?

  All firmwarez have been readded to the debian package.

 But with this amendment, they will have to go again anyway, so ...

As we've discussed on IRC, 4 of the 6 firmware blobs reintroduced in 2.6.18
apparently have no license statement whatsoever that is intended to permit
us to redistribute them, *even* in non-free.  So they should go away
regardless of the kind of exception the project grants for etch.

-- 
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: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-28 Thread Frederik Schueler
Hi,

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 06:40:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
  2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
  issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
 
 So, what progress has been made?

For example:

- the firmware_class infrastructure has been added in more than 100 
  drivers (as of 2.6.17)

- the qla2xxx firmware has been dropped from the kernel sources, and is
  now shiped on ftp.qlogic.com

- new drivers for devices requiring a firmware to be uploaded during
  initialization are included without embedded firmware (for example the
  ipw3945 driver, or aic94xx which has just been added in 2.6.19-rc)


Best regards
Frederik Schueler

-- 
ENOSIG


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-27 Thread Frederik Schueler
Hello,

On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
 As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
 would like to see.  Without further conditions is so broad that it seems
 to even *require* us to include firmware in main that lacks any sort of
 proper distribution license.

The intention is indeed to release the kernel as-is for Etch, postponing
the work which needs to be done in contacting vendors and upstream to
get relicensings and source disclosures until after the release. 

 And indeed, the upload of a completely
 unpruned 2.6.18 package to unstable suggests that this is not an accident of
 wording, but the actual view of the present kernel team.

It is at least my actual view, the others should speak for themself. 

We will discuss this issue on the kernel-team meeting next Saturday, how we 
should handle the re-added firmwares, and seek a workable compromise.

Dropping for example the apparently useless dgrs driver could be an 
option, or drop the drivers not needed for installation, which means
basically one driver (acenic) from the originally pruned ones would be
the non-free regression in comparison with the sarge kernels. 

But this should be decided by the whole kernel team. 


Best regards
Frederik Schueler

-- 
ENOSIG


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-27 Thread Sven Luther
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
 Hello,
 
 On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
  As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
  would like to see.  Without further conditions is so broad that it seems
  to even *require* us to include firmware in main that lacks any sort of
  proper distribution license.
 
 The intention is indeed to release the kernel as-is for Etch, postponing
 the work which needs to be done in contacting vendors and upstream to
 get relicensings and source disclosures until after the release. 
 
  And indeed, the upload of a completely
  unpruned 2.6.18 package to unstable suggests that this is not an accident of
  wording, but the actual view of the present kernel team.
 
 It is at least my actual view, the others should speak for themself. 
 
 We will discuss this issue on the kernel-team meeting next Saturday, how we 
 should handle the re-added firmwares, and seek a workable compromise.
 
 Dropping for example the apparently useless dgrs driver could be an 
 option, or drop the drivers not needed for installation, which means
 basically one driver (acenic) from the originally pruned ones would be
 the non-free regression in comparison with the sarge kernels. 

That said, it seems that the acenic sources are available somewhere, as they
are mentioned on the wiki page. Maybe we should get hand on them.

The only problem is with the licence (can only be used with the acenic
driver), which makes them non-free, but as the copyright holder kind of
dissapeared there is not much we can do about this.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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



Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-27 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
 Hello,
 
 On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
  As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
  would like to see.  Without further conditions is so broad that it seems
  to even *require* us to include firmware in main that lacks any sort of
  proper distribution license.
 
 The intention is indeed to release the kernel as-is for Etch, postponing
 the work which needs to be done in contacting vendors and upstream to
 get relicensings and source disclosures until after the release. 
 
  And indeed, the upload of a completely
  unpruned 2.6.18 package to unstable suggests that this is not an accident of
  wording, but the actual view of the present kernel team.
 
 It is at least my actual view, the others should speak for themself. 

From your proposol:

 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
 issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

So, what progress has been made?


Kurt


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



Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-27 Thread Sune Vuorela
On 2006-09-27, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
 issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

 So, what progress has been made?

All firmwarez have been readded to the debian package.

/Sune


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



Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-26 Thread Sven Luther
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1
 
 Hello, 
 
 As seconder of the below proposal, which has reached enough seconds since
 august 31, and as there where no ammendments against this proposal, i now
 officially call for a vote, as per section A.2 of our constitution.
 
 ===
 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
 community (Social Contract #4);
 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
 issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
 3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit
 out; for this reason, we will 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, without further conditions.
 ===
 
 As per section A.2.3, i should also propose a ballot, and i believe that the
 ballot should be of the form :
 
   [ ] Include non-free kernel firmware in etch (this proposal).
   [ ] Further discussion.
 
 Friendly,
 
 Sven Luther

Due to a request for a delay, and in light of the upcoming proposal which will
follow the debian/kernel irc meeting on saturday, i will hold this call for
vote until next monday.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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



Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-26 Thread Sven Luther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello, 

As seconder of the below proposal, which has reached enough seconds since
august 31, and as there where no ammendments against this proposal, i now
officially call for a vote, as per section A.2 of our constitution.

===
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
community (Social Contract #4);
2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit
out; for this reason, we will 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, without further conditions.
===

As per section A.2.3, i should also propose a ballot, and i believe that the
ballot should be of the form :

  [ ] Include non-free kernel firmware in etch (this proposal).
  [ ] Further discussion.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFGOdj2WTeT3CRQaQRAiezAKCYuy9ho9dDtIW6owhoawRV+cdv8ACfXvfI
Y1fC7FGGhMV6oLYLargcwsA=
=bwh6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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



Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

2006-09-26 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:

 As seconder of the below proposal, which has reached enough seconds since
 august 31, and as there where no ammendments against this proposal, i now
 officially call for a vote, as per section A.2 of our constitution.

 ===
 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
 community (Social Contract #4);
 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
 issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
 3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit
 out; for this reason, we will 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, without further conditions.
 ===

 As per section A.2.3, i should also propose a ballot, and i believe that the
 ballot should be of the form :

   [ ] Include non-free kernel firmware in etch (this proposal).
   [ ] Further discussion.

As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
would like to see.  Without further conditions is so broad that it seems
to even *require* us to include firmware in main that lacks any sort of
proper distribution license.  And indeed, the upload of a completely
unpruned 2.6.18 package to unstable suggests that this is not an accident of
wording, but the actual view of the present kernel team.

If this option appears on a ballot alone, I am likely to vote further
discussion on it and encourage others to do so as well.  I don't want this
GR to be a *mandate* that the release team allow firmware under clearly
non-free licenses into main for etch.

-- 
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]