On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:02, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not > >> what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal > >> conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them resemble each other. > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:26:05PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > I agree with Michael Poole insofar as this message. Here's an attempt at > > an unbiased summary: > > There are four classes of firmware: > [...] > > Current policy is that firmware types 1, 3, and 4 have to go. We cannot > > change our policy such that 1 can stay; that is illegal. If 3) and 4) > > are not copyright infringement (I and others believe they are, Michael > > and others believe they are not, that is what this debate is about), we > > *could* potentially suspend the SC/DFSG and release with them. I think > > this is also a bad idea, but it's feasible. If 3) and 4) are copyright > > infringement, then we must remove them as well. > > Which GR's are involved, which is which, and what are their statuses? Primarily GR 2004-003, which just got its first CFV. I haven't been following debian-vote, but I hope that the 6 (!) variations of it are enough to cover everyone's opinions... -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part