Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact be
clearer, and has also suggested to take
into account. I'll try to suggest some changes in wording to Manoj's
text that try to address these issues.
This is not a formal amemdment. Rather, I'd like to openly discuss the
> The following is the full text of my Amendment
> | 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 kernel
> | firmware issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
> | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in
> | the progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by
> | Debian relative to the Sarge release in Etch
> | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
-> | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
+ | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of non-free
> | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as
> | long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and
-> | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch,
-> | as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is
-> | distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.
+ | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch.
+ | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
+ | firmware leads to a violation of the license, if the current
+ | license does not allow modification, or if there is no source
+ | available. However, we still require that the firmware has a
+ | license that, in principle, allows distribution (possibly under
+ | conditions we currently cannot fully meet).
What do you think?
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)