Re: With the current resolution under vote, tg3 WILL HAVE TO GO, this is against what we want ...

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:43:28AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [061011 10:19]:
> > Which means a few things. For one, we cannot add into the etch kernels any of
> > the firmware which where stripped for sarge, and second, we will have to get
> > ride of all the firmware which are illegal to distribute (we agreed to get
> > ride of this one), but also those who are de-facto under the GPL, which we
> > agreed to keep. In particular this will mean that tg3 has to go, others
> > probably too. 
> 
> We have to remove illegal stuff anyways, there is no way around it. Can
> you please drop that point in the discussion.

Well.

The statement of position of the kernel team, said we would keep them. You
where invited to attend to that irc meeting, but didn't show up.

So, what are you now saying, as RM ? That you will do stuff explicitly
contrary to the resolution ? 

> Reading the resolution, it clearly tells us the stuff which has a
> DFSG-conformant license, e.g. BSD, is ok, independend of source. Unless

Indeed, but tg3 is not under such a licence, and thus has to go by the
resolution just passed.

You also don't respond to the claim about "no regression from sarge".

> we know otherwise, I would assume that whatever was put in the source by
> the upstream author, is meant to be source if licenses requires a
> source.

This is bullshit and putting your head in the sand, and we all know that. The
analysis by Larry explicitly listed only those firmwares for which it was
clear that "no sane person would or could write those hexdumps directly by
hand", and thus there is source 

> So, I only think we have to strip of:
> a) stuff illegally to distribute (there is *nothing* which helps you
> around on that);

Well, this means the sourceless GPLed drivers have to go, we have no legal way
of distributing them, since the GPL is void for them. 

> b) stuff where the author doesn't want it to be DFSG-free;

Indeed. But this is explicitly *NOT* what the kernel team wanted, and *NOT*
what was hinted at in the short title of the ballot. 

So, where do we stand, with a resolution the RMs have already said they will
not respect, with a wording which is misleading, and no clear understanding of
what the voters actually wanted.

A complete mess, we are probably worse off now than before the vote, and
calling me to shut up will not help you in this.

Friendly,

Sven Luther