Re: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:51:34 +0200, Sven Luther <email@example.com> said:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:04:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 06:49:17 +0200, Sven Luther
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> > 4. We allow inclusion of such firmware into Debian Etch, even
>> > if their license does not normally allow modification, as
>> > long as we are legally allowed to distribute them.
>> This clause is a violation of the DFSG, being able to modify
>> whatever we ship (apart from license texts) is a core part of what
>> free software is. Electing not to apply the DFSG violates the SC,
>> which says everything we produce would be free according to the
>> No matter how you look at it, this proposal supersedes either the
>> DFSG or the SC, or both, even though it does so only temporarily --
>> and superseding a foundation document requires a 3:1 super
> Probably, but then choice 1. of the ballot currently under vote
> should have had 3:1 supermajority also, which added to misleading
> wording of the short title compared to the actual content of the
> proposal, cast some serious doubt as to the validity of the vote
> being currently held.
Nope. Choice 1 (I am assuming you mean the gr_firmware's
"release etch despite firmware issues option", though that is not at
all clear) in no way requires anything that violates the DFSG or the
social contract, so it does not need the super majority.
The man who has never been flogged has never been taught. Menander
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C