[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

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.



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

Reply to: