On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:17:27PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:09:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > As i have warned you on irc, when you first asked the kernel team about this
> > GR, i think that the whole reasoning you propose is flawed, based on
> > patently
> >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:38:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:41:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > >Si, am I silly and alone in thinking that firmware is binary
> > > > computer programs? Let us ask google to define: firmware:
> > > You are silly in pretend
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Sven Luther]
> > To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
> > tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
>
> I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
> observations and o
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We never included non-free applications in main because we felt that
> there was no need to. And, indeed, even in 1993 it was possible to use a
> computer without any non-free applications.
> That doesn't hold with the firmware
Hi,
> > I'd actually see some restriction with regard to interoperability
> > (i.e. some reasonably documented interface between the firmware and
> > the driver code), but getting this right is likely not worth the
> > effort.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure what that would look like at all; as someone els
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:57:54PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> > shall also not be considered a program.
> I have some problems, publically saying that binary firmware blobs
> that most probably contain a lot of small p
Hi Florian,
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:27:07PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Steve Langasek:
> > - The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools
> > in order to be converted into its final "binary" form; e.g., some
> > device firmware, videos, and graphics.
Hi Enrico,
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:48:18AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I second most of the proposal, however:
> [...]
> > 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;
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:38:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:41:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > >Si, am I silly and alone in thinking that firmware is binary
> > > > computer programs? Let us ask google to define: firmware:
> > > You
[Sven Luther]
> To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
> tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
observations and offered some advice. He's quite right that my views
are not those of a develope
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:30:33AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> You wrote:
> > 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 #
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:09:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> As i have warned you on irc, when you first asked the kernel team about this
> GR, i think that the whole reasoning you propose is flawed, based on patently
> wrong assumptions.
> There is no way you can just decide that firmware is n
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:41:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >Si, am I silly and alone in thinking that firmware is binary
> > > computer programs? Let us ask google to define: firmware:
> > You are silly in pretending that the DFSG and the widely shared
> > consensus among developers a
Joey Hess wrote:
> . Ship a separate non-free CD.
iv
> 5. Implementing anything in 5 is a lot of work. Implementing it all
4
>will be pretty atrocious. My guess is still 6 months of solid work to
>implent a credible subset of 5, just like it
Sven Luther wrote:
> What Steve and others who seconded him propose is to ship non-free firmware in
> main, and declaring it as data, and thus disguising it as free software.
I guess that's a good statement, it's disquising firmware, not necessarily
as Free Software, but disguising it. We should
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > aren't software. So if firmware was already supposed to be covered
> > under the DFSG, how is this reconciled with the fact that no one
> > ever wo
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I'm undecided whether it's a good idea to exclude them from the
> distribution CDs and so on. How big is the problem of vital hardware
> which won't work without firmware being copied to it? Should we split
> non-free into non-free-hardware and non
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:25:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
> > actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
> > implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek 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
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
> actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
> implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that
> refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anyt
Anthony Towns wrote:
> If it makes sense, what are the major difficulties/inconveniences/whatever
> that were found in having this happen for etch, that will need to be
> addressed to achieve an etch+1 release that's both useful and convenient
> for both people who need/want non-free things, and th
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 18:18]:
> > In case it was not clear I was discussing things where firmware is also
> > loadable.
> Why?
Because everything else has no relevancy to Debian at all.
> Several drivers load microcode to graphics chipsets on startup.
But most of them sti
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:37:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (FWIW, non-free udeb support should finally be working properly as of
> next pulse)
From the ftp archive architecture side, or from the internal d-i side, or both
?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:17:00PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> >>4. Determines that as a special exception to DFSG #2, source code for
> >> device firmware will not be required until we have the technical means
> >> to split them out in a convenient way for our
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:18:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > OK, never saw that drives. But where is the problem with them. Works
> > without needing any non-free stuff being put in the operating systems
> > and people might be able to replace it. No good example.
>
> Wait. So by "Non-free
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>> 4. Determines that as a special exception to DFSG #2, source code for
>> device firmware will not be required until we have the technical means
>> to split them out in a convenient way for our users.
>
> I'd rather suggest to give a direct hint in time. Like "until e
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 17:31]:
>> If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
>> some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
>> vaguely modern processor. Let alone bootstra
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote, you wrote:
> It's my hope that this strikes a reasonable balance between respecting the
> views of individual developers and advancing a viable policy for the project
> so that we can move forward together on the goal of making each Debian
> release a first-class,
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 17:31]:
> If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
> some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
> vaguely modern processor. Let alone bootstrapping a system (LinuxBIOS
> will suffice for a v
Le mer 23 août 2006 13:35, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> The followup was only intended to make sure it was clear that it *was*
> Peter's take, and not necessarily the project's, and that debate is
> still appropriate.
d-vote@ is a discussion list, and nothing here that isn't a vote
result can be t
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So below is a proposal that I'm seeking seconds on to establish how DFSG#2
> should be understood to apply to firmware -- i.e., that for Debian's
> purposes firmware should be considered data, not programs, and along with
> other dat
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not true in either direction. Not every non-free application has
> a free counterpart[1]. And not every hardware needs firmware.
If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly imp
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:59:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony
>> Towns escribía:
>>
>>> We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian
>>> system req
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
> > you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
> > This means the missing of legal obs
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 16:40]:
> > We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
> > you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
> > This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
> > For this discussion
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:16:25 +0200, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi Manoj,
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, unless otherwise stated, the foundation document terms refer to
>> commonly understood meanings of words; looking to dictionaries,
>> encyclopedias, and
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
> you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
> This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
> For this discussion "preferred form
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:11:39 +0200 (CEST), Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Why is freedom of software only important for the central
>> processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
> Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's
* Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 15:46]:
> Certainly, it's one of the purposes. But I don't think we've *lost*
> anything by distributing binary firmware. Consider the cases:
>
> 1. Everything in hardware. You're not able to fix anything without a
>soldering iron ... and good lu
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:19:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Hi folks, Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:38:07 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> [Steve Langasek]
>> > That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see
>> > this being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a
>> > ROM wouldn
Followups set to -vote; why are we cc'ing this across multiple lists?
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:01:52PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El mi?rcoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
> escrib?a:
> > We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
>
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 15:24]:
> I'd rather suggest to give a direct hint in time. Like "until etch
> > releases", so that people wanting non-free firmware have to do the
> > techical stuff and not the people wanting control over what their
> > computer do.
>
> Notice that we a
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 14:59:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett
escribía:
> > No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what it's
> > required by it.
> The DFSG apply to "The Debian system". The social contract doesn't
> define what "The Debian system" is. We could
Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
> escribía:
>
>> We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
>> requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
>
> No, the DFSG
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
> > isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
> > fibrechannel card, it's produc
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >> > Well, the only one who could clai
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:14:03AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
> > > isn't producing a distr
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:00:49PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 11:15]:
> > Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
> > > > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> > > > shall also not be cons
ke, 2006-08-23 kello 10:30 +0200, Bas Zoetekouw kirjoitti:
> > 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
> >
> >
Steve Langasek wrote:
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
> software is very important for software freedom, but at the same time
>
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns escribía:
> We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
> requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what
* Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 11:15]:
> Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
> > > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> > > shall also not be considered a program.
> >
> > I'd personally prefer the 4th point to read:
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
>require for works that are not "programs" as previously understood in
>Debian?
Thank you for your proposal.
While I was thinking about a different proposal (both wider and narrower
in scope), I
On Aug 23, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
> non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
> making obviously false claims like "firmware are not programs" ?
"Firmwares are not progra
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Manoj wrote:
> > Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
> > definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
> > define: computer program gives:
> > ,
> > | * A computer program is a set of s
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:11:39PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Why is freedom of software only important for the central
> > processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
> Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
> ba
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:35:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I didn't say Peter's take didn't matter, because personally I consider
> it self-evident and unarguable that it does matter. The followup was
> only intended to make sure it was clear that it *was* Peter's take,
> and not necessarily
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
> > of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
> > opinion,
* Loïc Minier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060823 13:37]:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
> > > non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
> > Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
> >
Manoj wrote:
> Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
> definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
> define: computer program gives:
> ,
> | * A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
> | used directly or indirectly in a c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I heavily disagree to this change. It makes the text unpredictable.
I support your disagreement for the reasons you explained and also
because separating the firmwares from the kernel would not solve the
problem of making them available to Debian users.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 23, 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
>> > non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
>> Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
>> processor. Whatever the proje
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A completely different issue is whether we take upstream's word for
>GPL compability, or if we claim that something is not redistributable
>because it contains a firmware blob *and* is licensed under the GPL as
>a whole.
There is hardly a consensus on this, so I expect th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Why is freedom of software only important for the central
> processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
battle which should be pursued by Debian by not distributing sourceless
firm
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
> of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
> opinion, be he a DD or a guy from NM or some random poster.
Anyone can claim th
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:03:17PM +0200, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > and his expectat
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
> > non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
> Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
> processor. Whatever the project's opinion on firmware, madwi
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-23 00:18]:
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
> software is very important for soft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
> So, without further ado:
>
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work
> of software is
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:27:07PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Steve Langasek:
>
> > - The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools
> > in order to be converted into its final "binary" form; e.g., some
> > device firmware, videos, and graphics.
>
> I woul
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:19:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > > and his expe
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
> non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
processor. Whatever the project's opinion on firmware, madwifi is
cl
* Steve Langasek:
> - The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools
> in order to be converted into its final "binary" form; e.g., some
> device firmware, videos, and graphics.
I would prefer if the term "firmware" would be defined or at least
explained in the
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [Steve Langasek]
> > > That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
> > > being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
> > >
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 19:19 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> If you believe a comment on a list has no merit, it's very easy to deal
> with it: just ignore it, and go on discussing the ideas that are worth
> discussing.
Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
belie
> Though I understand your motivation, I prefer to have this GR
> "executable" (hm, is this the right word?), i.e. a text that has as few
> as possible disambiguties. If we say "until it will become practical",
> anyone can jump up even next week to say "now it is practical". I
> however want a st
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 11:51 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> Also, we are currently converting firmware from the broken way (i.e.
> included inside the kernel) to a better way. I don't think that it is a
> good idea to make the requirements for the (technical and social) better
> implementatio
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060823 11:28]:
> Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> >Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
> >>>4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> >>>shall also not be considered a program.
> >>I'd personally prefer the
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
> > as a w
Le mer 23 août 2006 11:28, Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> > Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
> >>> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device
> >>> firmware shall also not be considered a program.
> >>
> >> I'd personally pre
* Enrico Zini ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060823 10:49]:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> > shall also not be considered a program.
>
> I'd personally prefer the 4th point to read:
>
>
Josselin Mouette a écrit :
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I'd personally prefer the 4th point to read:
4. determines that for the purposes of
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:46:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yet another draft. There are major changes in this version, so
> I think we'll need to have people who seconded re-second the version
> that comes out of this discussion.
Seconded.
> Changes:
> + Cla
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
> > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> > shall also not be considered a program.
>
> I'd personally prefer the 4th point to read:
>
> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, devi
Hi,
i second this proposal.
(posted again, this time as signed eMail)
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:18:04AM CEST, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
> require for works that are not "programs" as
Hi,
i second this proposal.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:18:04AM CEST, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
> require for works that are not "programs" as previously understood in
> Debian? Several
Hi Steve!
You wrote:
> 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[-project dropped]
I second the proposal below.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Yet another draft. There are major changes in this version, so
> I think we'll need to have people who seconded re-second the version
>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Steve,
I second most of the proposal, however:
[...]
> 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
>
>
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 17:38 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
> as a whole.
An
2nd'd, also with Don's amendments.
Note that the 'in consultation' bit is still in - it could be still clearer
that the DPL may on his own take the decisions. But it's improved over the
prev. version.
cheers
-- vbi
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 18:46, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ---
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [Steve Langasek]
> > > That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
> > > being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
> > >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Steve Langasek]
> > That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
> > being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
> > wouldn't also be?
> The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or de
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060823 00:18]:
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
> software is very important for software
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
> require for works that are not "programs" as previously understood in
> Debian? Several rounds of general resolutions have now given us an
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:12:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> I would like to see some language to the effect that we make the
> exception for firmware only in the cases of data that use the moral
> equivalent of the kernel load_firmware interface, so that it's clear we
> aren't talking about the
97 matches
Mail list logo
