Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
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?
See http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 . The various proposals
either suspend the recent changes to the Social Contract for various
amounts of time (Proposal A: September 1, Proposal B: until Sarge
releases, Proposal C: until Sarge releases by putting an apology in the
Social Contract, Proposal D: permanently revert), propose a general
framework for transitioning between versions of the Social Contract
(Proposal E), or reaffirm the current Social Contract with its recent
changes (Proposal F). The proposal is currently open for votes; see
- Josh Triplett