Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a
draft ballot, voting has not yet started.
Will this vote have secret ballots?
--
,''`.
: :' :Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:03:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I believe that distributing firmware written in chunks of hex is in
compliance with the GPL, and repetition of your arguments isn't going
to change that belief.
Do you really
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:49:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 06:12:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:20:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anthony, this is bullshit.
Sven, if the GPL prohibits us from distributing the code, we (which is
to
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:04:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:49:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 06:12:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:20:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anthony, this is bullshit.
Sven, if
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 04:55:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:03:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I believe that distributing firmware written in chunks of hex is in
compliance with the GPL, and repetition of
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:08:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed, so we need to strip those GPLed firmwares ?
I'm not going to repeat myself on that again.
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this
Anthony, this is a strong breach of thrust. When you asked me to
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:28:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:08:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed, so we need to strip those GPLed firmwares ?
I'm not going to repeat myself on that again.
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include
Hi,
first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take
part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer
IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to hold the
important information for the vote, isn't it?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
This one time, at band camp, Romain Francoise said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a
draft ballot, voting has not yet started.
Will this vote have secret ballots?
The constitution doesn't say it has to, so
On 10/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank -
So the real question is whether we want to do that, whether in the
particular cases there's in fact any doubt, etc.
In making the list, I left off all cases where I had any doubt.
I am not perfect, but I have plenty of experience
Hi,
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that
this is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started. For operational
reasons, I have decided to start and end the vote in the middle of the
weekend (I am not able to guarantee being able to meet a schedule
during
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:02:22 +0200, Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this
is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started.
Will this vote have secret ballots?
No, I
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:57:33 +0300, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hopefully (but I doubt this) someone in Debian will get sued for
this violation in Etch, to stop such a behaviour in the future.
Nice. But the only one who can sue is the person whose
copytright we are violating
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:57:33 +0300, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hopefully (but I doubt this) someone in Debian will get sued for
this violation in Etch, to stop such a behaviour in the future.
Nice. But
On Thursday 05 October 2006 11:43, Frank Küster wrote:
first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take
part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer
IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to hold the
important information for the
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 05 October 2006 11:43, Frank Küster wrote:
first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take
part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer
IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to
Hi list masters and DPL,
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues,
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a
time as he is able to discuss issues,
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues,
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a
time as
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar
issues,
i now officially
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 06:05:28PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
22fc4edd-1f6c-454f-b204-6aa0bad0ce1d
[ ] Choice 1: DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
[ ] Choice 2: Further discussion
- -
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar
issues,
i now
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
Given the difficulty of finding a common ground about the non-free firmware
issue, the Debian Project does resolve that :
1) We allow inclusion in Debian Etch of all firmwares currently shipped in
the upstream linux
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:55:50PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given
I second the following proposal:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:04:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
Given the difficulty of finding a common ground about the non-free firmware
issue, the Debian Project does resolve that :
1) We allow inclusion in Debian Etch of all
Just for information.
This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo
(already re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further
discuss the issue, but in all cases, nothing will prevent further
discussion at a later time, and indeed our DPL has already said he
I hereby propose the below amendment, to the original proposal, so both will
appear on the ballot if enough seconds are reached.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
Given the difficulty of finding a common ground about the non-free
Err,
I didn't want to join this ugly subthread. But I do.
Sven has earned quite some points in this list for trying to argue to
the point. No matter whether he was wrong (nobody has really shown
that?). Now his whining and the post to d-d-a has nearly emptied his
account. However...
Luk
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:28:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
There is some claims that some of those blobs represent just register dumps,
This is a strawman, and Sven knows this as I have told him quite plainly
that this is not my claim.
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:19:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:02:22 +0200, Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this
is a draft ballot, voting has
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:24:34PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Just for information.
This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo
(already re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further
discuss the issue, but in all cases, nothing will prevent further
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:28:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
There is some claims that some of those blobs represent just register dumps,
This is a strawman, and Sven knows this as I have told him quite plainly
that this is
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The *relevant* claim I have made is that it is
inappropriate to use our GR mechanism to attempt to *decide* whether GPLed
drivers cause a distribution problem. The release team, the ftp team, and I
suspect even most of the kernel team have no interest
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:19:55PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
The current discussion in no way helps
the release of Etch.
Why not *name* the drivers that get an exception? This way, anybody who
*really* can contribute more than general doubt has to do it now, before
the vote.
The reason
I second the proposal.
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:04:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
Given the difficulty of finding a common ground about the non-free firmware
issue, the Debian Project does resolve that :
1) We allow inclusion in Debian Etch of all firmwares
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:41:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:04:32 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this
position statement; as per [0] the minimum discussion period for
Manoj's
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:04:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
Given the difficulty of finding a common ground about the non-free firmware
issue, the Debian Project does resolve that :
1) We allow inclusion in Debian Etch of all firmwares currently shipped in
the
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:28:13PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:04:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
Given the difficulty of finding a common ground about the non-free firmware
issue, the Debian Project does resolve that :
1) We allow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
The debian project resolves that :
1) We recognizes that there are many uncleared issues with the
current binary firmware files in linux kernel.
2) We will not ship a kernel package with such problematic licensing
Hello,
for the sake of completeness in the ballot, and having 4 options from
release with all firmwares to delay the release, I hereby second
this proosal.
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
The debian project resolves that :
1) We recognizes that there are many uncleared issues with the
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
The debian project resolves that :
1) We recognizes that there are many uncleared issues with the
current binary firmware files in linux kernel.
2) We will not ship a kernel package
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:57:33 +0300, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hopefully (but I doubt this) someone in Debian will get sued for
this violation in Etch, to stop such a behaviour in the future.
Nice. But the only one who can sue is the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Frederik's proposal as amended by Manoj has been seconded by:
[...]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is not a second of Frederik's proposal. Does it still count?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of
turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for.
It was rather because someone has an urge to feel power flowing through
their body by banning
On Thursday 05 October 2006 17:19, Frank Küster wrote:
I can understand that. However, I'd rather have that discussion before
the GR than after it, when it turns out that people do *not* agree about
the meaning of it...
Sure. However it makes no sense having a discussion about individual
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
My, just as amateurish, standpoint is: the preferred from of
modification of code for firmware blobs included in a driver that is
otherwise coded in C (or assembler or whatnot) - and for that matter
for images, video and even documentation - is whatever
On Friday 06 October 2006 02:46, Don Armstrong wrote:
If you have specific questions about what the GPL says and means,
please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to clarify it before putting the
archive in a position which is legally hazardous.
Right, which was exactly my point: this discussion does
On Friday 06 October 2006 02:46, Don Armstrong wrote:
This is not the case. A trivial counter example is the distribution of
a binary object which is statically linked to (or otherwise in
combination forms a derivative work of) a GPLed codebase, where the
copyright holder of the binary object
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi debian-legal, ...
I've trimmed -release, as luk suggested it's unwelcome there.
[...] The real problem is that there are a certain
amount of firmware in the kernel, embedded in the drivers, which have no
license notice whatsoever, and as thus fall
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:57:33PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
Hopefully (but I doubt this) someone in Debian will get sued for this
violation in Etch, to stop such a behaviour in the future.
You do realise we're going to voluntarily stop it immediately after
releasing etch anyway, right?
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have proper
license,
Ah, no, i forgot to change this to what Manoj suggested this morning :
We further note that some of these firmware do not have individual license,
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:05PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Frederik's proposal as amended by Manoj has been seconded by:
[...]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is not a second of Frederik's proposal. Does it still count?
It's a second of the
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote,
As per 4.2(5) of the constitution, it's required that any developer
may post to the list designated for proposals, sponsors, amendments,
calls for votes and other
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:04:32 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this
position statement; as per [0] the minimum discussion period for
Manoj's amendment as accepted by
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:28:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have proper
license,
Ah, no, i forgot to change this to what Manoj suggested this morning :
We further
Hi,
With the vote being called, here is a draft ballot for the
firmware vote. The voting period has not yet started.
manoj
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,8th October 2006
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 14th October 2006
The
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 02:23:17AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Sorry, my comments were general and aimed at several persons participating
in the discussion. (Though it would be foolish to deny that Sven was one of
them. And it is also no secret that I find Sven's total domination (as
evidenced
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:27:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote,
As per 4.2(5) of the constitution, it's required that any developer
may post to the list designated
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:28:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
With the vote being called, here is a draft ballot for the
firmware vote. The voting period has not yet started.
Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your
recall as secretary, not
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
List masters, this is evidence that Frans is not going to stop this, and as i
asked yesterday, i now re-iterate the demand for his ban from debian-vote.
Come on, calm down. That one was neither insulting nor attacking.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
this is at least clearly worded, unambiguous, and if it succeeds will
allow to release etch without delay (at least without delay because of
firmware problems).
It seems this is not true (qlogic), and still might be interpreted,
namely as trying to
60 matches
Mail list logo
