Hi,
The proposals we have before us either call for a delay in
lenny, or in some way override or try to do an end run around the
social contract. This is in contrast to the vote we had for etch,
where we said that the blobs must be distributed under the DFSG -- the
only thing that was
I second Manoj's proposal below.
ma, 2008-11-10 kello 12:21 -0600, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lo
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:21:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 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 pro
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 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 k
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software doesn't
> need to meet the DFSG, or is it just that it's particularly inconvenient
> to release without it?
I think
This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software doesn't
> > need to meet the DFSG, or is it just that it's pa
-=| Manoj Srivastava, Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:21:21PM -0600 |=-
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 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 progr
On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software doesn't
> > need to meet the DFSG, or is it just that it's particula
* Matthew Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081110 22:03]:
> On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > > for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software does
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
>> I think it's fairly obvious that glibc meets the DFSG in practice, in
>> that no one is ever going to attempt to apply the ambiguous and
>> badly-written portions of the Sun RPC license in a way that migh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 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
This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
>
> >> I think it's fairly obvious that glibc meets the DFSG in practice, in
> >> that no one is ever going to attempt to apply the ambiguous and
> >> badl
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081110 22:03]:
> > On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > > > for release? Is there a particular
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081110 22:03]:
>> On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
>> > > for release? Is t
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then I suppose the best thing would be for you to downgrade the bug from
> RC.
I'm not one of the release managers nor am I a glibc maintainer, so I
don't think that would be an appropriate action for me to take. I've just
been following the bug for a f
On Mon Nov 10 16:05, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Also, it's in the process of being resolved. There are (according to
> >> another thread) talks with Sun about explicitly licensing it under a
> >> better licence.
> >
> > The stuff in the kernel is also in the process of being resolved.
>
>
Hi,
With a new option added to the list, the discussion period is
extended again, by a week, starting 10 Nov 2008 21:28:29.
The proposals, tentatively, as reproduced below.
|+---+---+---+---+---|
|
Hi,
> | Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | | | |
I think you've missed to count
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
here.
Cheers,
Bernd
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 06:21:21PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 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 pro
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 16:25 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ]
[...]
> | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every
> | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
> | fir
Le mardi 11 novembre 2008 à 04:49 +, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
> (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license
> that complies with the DFSG". But it is surely irrelevant whether the
> licence text s
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
> (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license
> that complies with the DFSG".
Yes. Without that clause, one can say we could ship something
like nv
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:21:21PM -0600]:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 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 progre
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23:26PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >
> And that if we release now, the glibc code which we ship will be free
> shortly, without having to update stable, whereas the code shipped in
> the kernel won't be free in Lenny, however long we wait (because the
> solution is
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:21:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 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
Hi,
This email is an excerpt from Sven Luther, sent via
private email. Ths is unedited, but incomplete, I have not included the
final paragraph of that email, since I could not defend posting that,
and this is what I am comfortable sending. The eliding the final
paragraph does not, in
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 04:05:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The difference being that the former is being resolved with a
> license change, and the latter is being resolved with code changes, and
> will require adjustments to the infrastructure. That makes the former
> a faster
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
> > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license
> > that complies with the DFSG".
>
>
On Tue, Nov 11 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
>> > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a lic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I second Manoj's proposal as quoted below.
Cheers,
Bernd
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
>
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 04:13:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Andreas Barth schrieb:
> > > In case any of the proposals get enough seconds, I would propose then:
> > >
> > > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them
> > > | against each other. However during g
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:39:40PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I'm responding to this by proposing the following alternate option:
>
> | The Social Contract is our promise to the free software community.
> |
> | Neither the Release Team, nor any selected group of individuals, is
> | empowered to
33 matches
Mail list logo
