Martin Pitt wrote: > We, the Debian Developers, will aim to release Sarge as soon as > technically possible (concerning release critical bugs and the > installer) by following the current release plan[1]. We are aware of > the fact that both Woody and Sarge contain components that violate the > current Social Contract (since they are not free in the sense of the > Debian Free Software Guidelines) and the GNU General Public License; > as soon as Sarge is officially released, we promise to put all our > efforts in preparing a new stable release which will fully comply with > the current Social Contract and the GNU General Public License. As written this seems to let us keep *any* non-free software in sarge, even software that has a license prohibiting distribution, which is surely too broad. We cannot just shove GPL violations under the rug either. If non-free firmwares in the linux kernel are not compatable with the GPL, then we can't ship them. If we do, we could be sued by any contributor to the linux kernel. > Both Woody and Sarge contain GFDL'ed documents and kernels containing > binary-only firmware. So regardless of the outcome of the current > discussion, either both or none violate the GPL and the SC. Since both > Woody and Testing are currently distributed by us (you can download > all packages from the web and can even buy unofficial Sarge CDs), it > does not make a legal difference whether we name a set of packages > "Sarge", "testing", or "Snoopy Doo". Also it does not make a legal > difference whether we violate the SC and DFSG with Woody or Sarge. A judge might draw a distinction between unknowingly violating a license vs violating it again after we're aware of the problem with an entire new release that is advertised widely. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature