Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
terms of those who are.
An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement. If a fully working, tested solution to load
non-free firmware from userland into the kernel (thus avoiding the
linking problem) fell from the sky tomorrow, I suspect very few people
would suggest that it was A Bad Thing, and that the kernel was better
when it had potentially dubious, non-free blobs in it.
In my opinion, the problem isn't the principle, merely the practicality:
a delayed Sarge would be annoying, but the products that are necessary
for an 'anally-free' Sarge would be of great benefit to users of both
Debian, and Free Software in general.
Clause four of (even the unamended) social contract, in my opinion,
suggests that later is better than less free, and thus the amendment was
The Right Thing, even though it may delay Sarge.
"4. *Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software*
*We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities.* We
will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
kinds of computing environment. We won't object to commercial software
that is intended to run on Debian systems, and we'll allow others to
create value-added distributions containing both Debian and commercial
software, without any fee from us. To support these goals, we will
provide an integrated system of high-quality, *100% free software, with
no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use*.