Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal
On Wed, Nov 12 2008, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:58:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > That's an even greater feat of double-think than is usual around
>> > non-free.
>> If you have proof that the blobs are definitely not the
>> preferred form of modification, and thus are in violation ofthe
>> kernel's GPL, please present the proof, and not just to us, but to the
>> broader kernel community.
> The problem is that the kernel community mostly doesn't care, and when
> we approched them last time, they even replied quite agressively for us
> to point the finger to this.
I think that is ancient history. The upstream kernel community
is now taking steps to move firmware out into a separate git repo, so
we can not say that an uncaring upstream is an excuse.
> So, we are in the same situation, as other non-DFSG solution, as long as
> we don't prove that there is someone who cares, and someone with enough
> presence for this worry to be taken into account, and change things,
> people will just continue not-caring.
Again, this is not the case: Ben Hutching's work right now has
all the changes you are talking about. The question is the time taken
to assess the impact on other parts of Debian, but not that we do not
know how to make the changes.
> Please forward this, because i am being censored.
I have elided parts of the email that dealt with the Etch GR,
and the supposed flaws of that process that led us to the position we
are in no. I was not comfortable posting that here.
People love high ideals, but they got to be about 33-percent
plausible. Will Rogers
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C