Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:16:05PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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
> configuration, too.
> 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).
Forget my message, I was reading "Java blobs" and thought you were
talking about the openjdk plugin.