Hello, On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:16:26AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > I asked you this question before privately and haven't seen an answer. You > say below "So we propose this GR:"; does that mean that everything up to > that is rationale, and not part of the text that developers will be voting > on? I am fine with it either way. The initial intention was to draw the complete picture before getting to the GR proposal per se, but IMHO this is not necessary anymore now, as everyone should be well informed about the status quo and the implications every choice bears. > This is very unclear to me; if the intent is to vote on the whole document, > I think some wording tweaks are needed. If the intent is to vote only on > the part beginning with "1. We affirm [...]", then I think it's much shorter > than it should be. hm, what is missing? > So if we are going to make an exception, I think we should take care to make > the smallest exception necessary. If we don't *need* to grant exceptions > for firmware based on their license, only on whether or not they include > source, I don't think we should include such firmware in the exception. > This prevents anyone from trying to add such firmware to etch that isn't > already included, which would be a regression vis-à-vis freeness. I would like to include ALL firmware shipped upstream in the Etch release, even those which where removed by Herbert Xu a couple of years ago when this issue faced up the first time (acenic, smctr, keypsan etc). Best regards Frederik Schueler -- ENOSIG
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature