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

Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?

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

Reply to: