On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:01:10PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: (...) > > b. As firmware support is dropped from the debian kernel, document it. > Refer angry users to debian-devel and Fedora. Release as soon as sarge > is otherwise ready. This is the one I (and I believe our users and many dds) would prefer most. (...) > What's currently strongly tipping me toward option b. despite not having > all the numbers handy, is that there's a good chance that if sarge is > delayed until next year, it is effectively delayed until when we would > have released sarge+1, if this mess had not happened. As such, a sarge > release now can only help us, since it will be better than no release > for some nonzero subset of our users. I agree wholeheartedly with you. Unless we are capable of _right_now_ strip off all the non-DFSG software/firmware/data/you_name_it in a 3.0r3 release we are better off releasing sarge right away. Acknowledging (sp?) we have a lot to do regarding purging/replacing non-DFSG stuff and stating the fact that we are going to do it. We would be in a similar philosophical (or even legal) position if we ship sarge than if we kept woody as-is (with all the non-DFSG stuff in either one). Obviously, releasing sarge now would only be to the benefit to our users, which is also a requirement of our SC. Now, even before we can commence an audit for non-DFSG stuff we have to decide which stuff is non-DFSG. Many people believe GFDL stuff is not DFSG-free, but there has not been an _official_ statement by the project related to it. Has there been one? (besides -legal discussions, which I've tried to follow) We have not, similarly, discussed what data will be affected by this review: will it be bmp/jpg/png images? will it be also fonts? will it be some other kind of binary data we are not aware exists in Debian? [1] Or even, what should these data be licensed as. Clearly, the GPL does not cover that data properly as the FSF has acknowledged himself. Regards Javier PS: Just for the record, I was away on VAC when this GR was voted and, after reviewing my e-mail, I also considered the "Editorial" change a minor change, like (obviously) many other dds. Still, I'm willing to stick with "the purge", if we do it in a sensible way. [1] Consider for example the case I've brought up niche applications: astronomy software and star data catalogues. This includes: #108452 (closed), #198499 (closed), #198495 (closed), #225002 (open) and some others I've opened up recently.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature