On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 06:27:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 19, Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> wrote: > > So, I think the main thing that bothers me is that there doesn't seem > > to be any organization on this project -- just a lot of chattering. > Because there is definitely no "project" and not even an agreement on > what is bad, only two decisions by aj: > - embedded firmwares are not GPL-compatible > - DFSG status of firmwares will be ignored for sarge I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to repeat this before it gets through. The DFSG status of firmware is a problem, but will be ignored for sarge. The GPL compliance of kernels, drivers, and modules that include firmware is also a problem, and _is_ an issue for sarge. This issue can be resolved either by removing the firmware and the driver, or by separating the firmware out from the kernel. This latter option is obviously better since it doesn't screw users over. It can be implemented using the request_firmware() hotplug API. That API is straightforward to port to and integrated upstream. Solving the problem in this way will also make it easier for us to deal with the longer-term DFSG issue. > My position is that we should keep distributing firmwares like everybody > else does, and I have no interest in working in other directions. You asked for a policy decision and you got it. If you don't like it, you're welcome to use the appropriate channels to get it overturned, but unless you succeed at that, you need to abide by the decision, not go off in a sulk. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature