Re: call for seconds: on firmware
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 19:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
>> > several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
>> > i Do we require source for firmware in main: Yes
>> > ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: No
>> > iii What do we do for Lenny: Wait
>> > iV Do we modify foundation documents: No
>> > v Do we override foundation documents No
>> > and that seems to be consistent with what Manoj is ruling about overrides
>> > of the SC.
>> This is my reading, yes. As far as I see, the SC is pretty
>> clear, and leaves us no other option.
> It seems very convenient to decide at the same time that "further
> discussion" equals proposition #1 and that other propositions require
> 3:1 majority.
> This means that, if proposition #1 fails to gather 1:1 majority and
> other propositions fail to gather 3:1 (a very likely outcome), you get
> to decide that proposition #1 applies anyway.
> It makes me feel uneasy.
The decision comes from here:
,----[ The Debian Social Contract ]
| 1. Debian will remain 100% free
| We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
| `free' in the document entitled `The Debian Free Software
| Guidelines'. We promise that the Debian system and all its
| components will be free according to these guidelines.
,----[ The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) ]
| 2. Source Code
| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
| source code as well as compiled form.
,----[ The Debian Constitution ]
| 1. A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
| critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
| 2. The Foundation Documents are the works entitled `Debian Social
| Contract' and `Debian Free Software Guidelines'.
| 3. A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its
| supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and existing
| ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation Documents in
| this constitution.
So, really, we cannot release programs (firmware) in main
without source code just because a few delegates think we should.
We can make the argument that the blobs have not been proven to
be non-source code; however unlikely that is, and turn a blind eye to
the unlikelyness of them being actual source code while we release
lenny, or we can change or supersede the foundation documents,
temporarily or permanently.
"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." Hannah Arendt.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C