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

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 12:57 +0200 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:04:21AM +0000, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 08:29 +0200 schrieb Marc Haber:
> > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
> > > <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> > > >On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > >> No, really.  The kernel team are volunteers.  Ordering them to do things
> > > >> doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
> > > >> everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
> > > >> could also step up to the plate and help fix this issue.
> > > >
> > > >Of course.  These are RC bugs.  I would be happy to upload an NMU that
> > > >fixed the RC issue by removing support for the relevant hardware, and
> > > >dropping blobs from the source.  I don't think it's a very challenging
> > > >task, but I'm happy to do so.  Will that be ok?
> > > 
> > > You're not seriously thinking that a release without E100 support does
> > > make any sense and is any good for Debian, right?
> > 
> > How long do you want to ignore the issue, then? It's software without
> > source, every other package gets a REJECTED in NEW for such stuff.
> If we weren't doing compromises, then:

You are missing my point. We[1] got a reject for a documentation PDF
without source. So, we contacted upstream who checked the copyright with
the company in order to release the source for the documentation. And
yes, it's work, painful, whatever and I would have preferred not having
to do it.

The kind of "compromise" above makes it close to impossible to argue in
such cases: 

Upstream: "You are ignoring the issue in case X, why do you bother me
about Y? It's not even code, if you want the text, just extract it."

What do you expect me to say in such cases: "You are not the kernel."?

[1] Packages are group-maintained.

> I don't say it's nothing we should _care_ about, but at some point:
>   * you don't have the source of your BIOS;
>   * you don't have the VHDL source of your CPU and all the chipsets of
>     your computer;
>   * I'm sure your laptop/computer has dozens of patented hardware bits,
>     so you're supporting patents while buying it, you should do a
>     pilgrimage to cleanse yourself from all that filth.

Yes, and what of the above is in Debian's archive? Frankly, if binary
firmware is okay, just say so in the DFSG. No problem with me. But then
please be consistent and stop forbidding uploads for documents without
source, too. Because I'm unable to explain the difference between
"firmware without source" and "binary documentation without source". Can
you explain it?

> Firmwares are here because it's cheaper nowadays to have a chip that is
> versatile and configured to a specific task. Older hardware had less
> firmwares because the chips were made specifically for the board it was
> in, and you had no problems with not having the source "code" of the
> chip. So really, I see there is a double standard here, and a lot of
> hypocrisy.

See above, the same tale about double standards can be told as soon as
other packages enter the picture.


Reply to: