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 > | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of > | Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so. > | > | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 > | majority) > `---- [...] > ,----[ 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); [...] > | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every > | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless > | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of > | Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the > | firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies > | with the DFSG. > `---- [...] 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 says we can modify the source when the copyright holder is deliberately withholding the source. (Further, in some cases the licence is GPLv2 which requires us to redistribute the source we don't have - though thankfully there are only 1 or 2 such cases left.) So why do you claim that #2 and #3 override the SC but #5 doesn't? Ben.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part