Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
* Mike Hommey:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> * Theodore Tso:
>> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
>> > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
>> > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
>> > relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the
>> > Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure.
>> I think it's not that simple anymore.
>> For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object
>> to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute
>> or by linking them in some way).
> Following the same logic, you should be opposing to packages such as the
> kernel, that allows to run proprietary ELF blobs. This is ridiculous.
If the kernel automatically downloaded some binary from the network
and executed it, I would consider that unacceptable for a default
It's not the mere possibility that counts. I'm against doing this by
default (or requiring it for almost any use of a package).