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

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

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

Interesting; Manoj's post isn't in the -vote archives on master. I wonder
why that is?

> >         Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
> > ,----
> > |  http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
> > |  General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
> > `----
> >         To get a special dispensation for lenny.
> I think this would be insane.  [...]
> I object to a second round of this.  I was ok with it once, [...]

Hrm, were you? Hey, we can check!

V: 12	             tb	Thomas Bushnell
 -- http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_editorial_tally.txt

    (in favour of editorial amendments GR that made all non-free anything
     unambiguously unsuitable for main; except maybe license texts)

V: 3457216	             tb	Thomas Bushnell
 -- http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_sarge_tally.txt

    ("The Debian Project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom,
     and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point
     updates to stable releases) that contains anything in the main  or
     contrib sections which is not free software according to the DFSG.";
     with the various proposed exceptions for sarge ranged between [2] and
     [5], further discussion at [6], and reverting the previous GR at [7])

V: 12	             tb	Thomas Bushnell
  -- http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004_tally.txt

     ("Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system
      (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the
      work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit,
      or by some other form of execution."; Further Discussion won the day)

V: 231	             tb	Thomas Bushnell
  -- http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007_tally.txt

     (Options were "Release etch with DFSG problems, but no regressions
      compared to sarge", exemptions for images and for firmware while
      technically needed but with no specific end date, and further
      discussion; the first option won the day)

Seems to me you held pretty much the same opinions then as you do now...

> The kernel team should *fix the bug* and not just sit on their hands.

You know, I haven't been paying any attention, but somehow I don't think
the kernel team have really just been sitting on their hands. It just
seems like maybe there's a third option, you know? Well, I don't and maybe
I'm mistaken, so as a show of good faith, here's a photo of me sitting
on my hands [0]. Because, hey, _someone_ must have been doing it, right?

> We should not release until it's fixed.

Why don't we embrace the principle fully, and remove all our old releases
too? That's not sarcasm -- I just don't see a reason to reject that idea,
but not also to keep compromising until there's no longer anything to
compromise with. AFAICS, the idea is to stop Debian users and developers
from kidding themselves that they've got a free OS and force them to fix
the remaining problems until they do. And if that's really a good idea,
why not commit to it? 

But hey, I never saw the problem with only wanting to distribute free
/software/, and we know where that sort of thinking leads!

> Moreover, at the time, there was an amendment proposed to make it "as
> long as required" and it got fewer votes than the one-time thing.
> Pretty clearly, we *already decided* this issue, and we need no vote.

We decided there would be an exception for sarge, and another one for
etch. I don't think there's been any decision made via GR on lenny,
and even if there had been, another GR could quite reasonably overturn
it if enough people felt it was warranted.

> We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to fix
> this means we will not be able to release".

What good do you think that will do? Here, let me try:

Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
at least 2004 -- over four years ago! -- means we will continue to do
releases with non-free software.

Did it do any good? Is there something different about other maintainers
that will make that logic work better on them, than you?

> I object very strongly to the feeling that I am being held hostage by
> developers who will not fix the bug, and then protest "emergency! we
> must release! no delay! we'll do it next time!" and then sit on their
> hands again for another go-round.  The solution is to refuse to play
> along, and to say, "hey, you had two years; we're just going to wait
> until you fix the bug."

"Hey, you've had four years; we're just going to keep releasing until
you fix the bug."

Hint: you're not being held hostage by anyone, seriously. You know how
you can tell? Two words: Stockholm syndrome.

aj, who knows what completely ignoring the lists is like, and wants a
    fresh comparison of that to randomly trolling into flamewars

[0] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/handsit.jpg

    It's really kinda difficult to take a photo of yourself sitting
    on both hands, especially when you can't be bothered going to any
    effort. Which would, after all, defeat the purpose.

Reply to: