Hi,
> I propose the following amendment to Steve's proposal.
>
> > 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
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:42:19AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> > I think we should learn from OpenBSD on this front.
> >> I agree. Indeed, the OpenBSD project not only distributes
> >> sourceless firmwares, but also sourceless firmwares with a
> >> license which forbids modifications and rever
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device
>>firmware shall also not be considered a program.
>
> This would require us to amend the foundation doc
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:02:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Recent history -- in particular, GR 2006-001's winning option --
> suggests that broad DFSG exemptions, when treated as clarifications or
> interpretations of the project, are not necessarily so clear-cut about
> requiring a 3:1 super
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> If you want to amend the DFSG to state
>
> "3. Source Code
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
> code as well as compiled form. However, this requirement does not apply to
> firmware, defined as ."
>
> I would strongly oppose s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program.
I am not sure, it's not very funny to me. But it worked pretty well
until you and a few other people started pretending we have been
confused for all these years and actually meant something else.
>Suppos
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:25:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish
> > information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you.
>
> I see. If I buy a stand
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux
> > +
> > userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in
> > the flash of t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish
> information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you.
I see. If I buy a standard-issue Dell computer, then Windows is
firmware, right? (Dell does provide it,
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux +
> userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in
> the flash of the board.
Wow. I thought that "doesn't run on the main CPU" was entirely
indefensi
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:23:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> > shall also not be considered a program.
>
> I am bothered that there is never a definition of "firmwa
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:26:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Notice that the bios or other firmware used on most machines today is also
> > refered as firmware. The original definition is, i believe, any kind of code
> > provided by the vendo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Notice that the bios or other firmware used on most machines today is also
> refered as firmware. The original definition is, i believe, any kind of code
> provided by the vendor of said device, and on which he has full control, so
> firmware was non-free
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you and I discussed previously on IRC, I don't agree with this amendment.
> The premise of my proposal is that we are *not* granting an exception nor
> redefining any terms, we are merely recognizing a latent definition of
> "programs" that has guide
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> shall also not be considered a program.
I am bothered that there is never a definition of "firmware" here. It
seems to me that if you gave one, it would be something like:
"firm
I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program.
Suppose we had in our possession the source code and an assembler for
it. Surely then it would be obviously a program.
thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] "de Raadt firmware" I have found:
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1098992287663.html
> And http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550:
Thanks. (Neither were in the OpenBSD list archives...)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mj
Le sam 26 août 2006 11:37, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> I propose the following amendment to Steve's proposal.
>
> > 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
> >
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I realize that hardware includes non-free firmware in rom, but I think
>that observation misses the point. Firmware in rom isn't being^M
>distributed by the debian project. The first problem I see with debian
The good old "what I don't see cannot hurt me" argument.
>an
19 matches
Mail list logo
