[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 <neroden@fastmail.fm> 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'? :)


Reply to: