Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> writes:
> In linux.debian.kernel Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>What can be done about this?
>>>Accept that most people do not consider this a problem?
>>First of all, this is false. Most Debian developers agree with me. You
> This is unproven.
It is also irelevant.
The release team has made it a release blocker. Thez have decided this
(following the SC discussions for sarge) for the project. You need to
convence them or make a GR to change it.
>>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release team
> I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
How do you handle the fact that it is a license violation making the
thing illegal to distribute?
>>agrees with me that this is a problem, and it is explicitly a release blocker.
> It's not like they had a choice.
Exactly, neither do you. :)
>>You probably agreed to uphold the Social Contract in your Debian work.
>>(Or were you "grandfathered in" before NM?)
> I became a developer long before the NM process was created, and I
> agreed to follow the "unclarified" social contract.
'or any later version'? :)