Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)
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 As a point of order, the original proposal from Frederik was superseded once he accepted Manoj's amendment, and several of the seconders of the original proposal also seconded the amended proposal, indicating their acceptance of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)
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 As a point of order, the original proposal from Frederik was superseded once he accepted Manoj's amendment, and several of the seconders of the original proposal also seconded the amended proposal, indicating their acceptance of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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-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)
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]
