Hi, Peter,
Thanks for your very informative response. You've confirmed my
understanding that the main/contrib split is not about software
freedom at all. I've thus come to the conclusion that it was
motivated by the other Debian priority. Please bear with me while I
explore the consequences of
[Alexandre Oliva]
> That's why packages that contain Free Software along with
> documentation under licenses that don't pass the DFSG end up split
> into separate packages. Keeping the documentation that didn't pass
> the DFSG wasn't deemed acceptable, neither was moving the whole
> package to no
Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008 à 17:37 -0200, Alexandre Oliva a écrit :
> It does make a difference when the components don't quite form an
> inseparable unit, but rather they're just put together in a single
> tarball for convenience.
Kernel modules are not really separable from the kernel image. You c
On Oct 30, 2008, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether they are plugins or modules or whatnot is irrelevant here.
I'm not sure on what policies your statement is based on, but clearly
to me what defines a package is not just an artifact of upstream
packaging that Debian itself is
Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 22:10 -0200, Alexandre Oliva a écrit :
> > Because the kernel is perfectly usable without the firmwares.
>
> But how about the specific modules that require them, the ones that
> got this sub-thread started in the first place? It doesn't make sense
> to me to frame t
On 28 Oct, 2008, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mardi 28 octobre 2008 à 14:12 -0200, Alexandre Oliva a écrit :
>> I hope the prevalent interpretation of Debian's rules and policies
>> isn't so lax as to make room for such manipulation as packaging stuff
>> in main that belongs in
Le mardi 28 octobre 2008 à 14:12 -0200, Alexandre Oliva a écrit :
> I hope the prevalent interpretation of Debian's rules and policies
> isn't so lax as to make room for such manipulation as packaging stuff
> in main that belongs in contrib or non-free just because it happens to
> be part of the sa
On Oct 28, 2008, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Alexandre Oliva]
>> Say, if these drivers that require non-Free firmware *were* shipped
>> as separate packages (for whatever reason), would they really belong
>> in main, rather than in contrib?
> Now you've hit on it. If they were
[Alexandre Oliva]
> Say, if these drivers that require non-Free firmware *were* shipped
> as separate packages (for whatever reason), would they really belong
> in main, rather than in contrib?
Now you've hit on it. If they were packaged _separately_, the drivers
that are non-functional without
Sorry that it took so long to respond, I'm not on this list, and I'm
not even sure I could/should be.
Anyhow, the evidence you presented to support your opinion seems to me
to actually support the opposite of your opinion, so please bear with
me while I get myself acquainted with Debian's position
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 18:28 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I've been watching the discussion and the separation of firmware from
> kernel sources with a lot of interest, but today it dawned on me that,
> even if this project is completed, it wouldn't quite address the issue
> of com
Hi again,
I've been watching the discussion and the separation of firmware from
kernel sources with a lot of interest, but today it dawned on me that,
even if this project is completed, it wouldn't quite address the issue
of compliance with Debian procedures and regulations.
I understand main is
12 matches
Mail list logo
