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

Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:50:19PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > >   C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or
> > >      software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose
> > >      source is not available by making such works available in
> > >      non-free and providing project resources to the extent that
> > >      Debian is capable of doing so.
> > 
> > "to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so." What is the
> > alternative to that ? not ship it ? Or ship it in main until "Debian
> > is capable of doing so" ?
> It was intended to be parsed as [providing project resources to the
> extent that Debian is capable of doing so] to avoid requiring us to
> commit resources that we aren't able to do so comfortably, and/or
> distribute programs that we cannot legally distribute.

So, the alternative is not ship the problematic files at all, altough we can
waive that with something like Frederik's GR.

Manoj, what is the plan for Frederik's GR ? is the idea to voting it
separatedly from the rest of the more ideological GRs and amendments still
something that can or will happen ? 

> > >   D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is
> > 
> > I think "Request" is a bit strong here, i would much have prefered a
> > less arrogant and will actually have more chance to be not dismissed
> > out of hand by the actual hardware vendors.
> I'd intended for this paragraph to be used as something that people
> working with hardware vendors to freely license the source to firmware
> could point to when the hardware vendors ask "Does Debian actually
> want this?" I don't believe it would require Debian to send any
> message to the hardware vendors, besides its presence in the
> resolution.

Well, the resolution we will end up with will end up on slashdot, and probably
be linked in major linux-related news sites and such. It will most assuredly
end being read at least by the technical part of their driver staff.

As thus, it would be more diplomatic, and in the long term more productive, to
turn this last paragraph in a more soft way, maybe using terms like "Recomend"
instead of "Request" and speaking of "working with the hardware vendors" or
something like this i saw in another proposal. But then, someone with more
grasp of the english lenguage should comment on this.

Also, keep in mind that it will probably be the kernel team, and maybe even 
specifically me, who will end doing those "requests".

Another thing to keep in mind is that when i contacted broadcom and Andres
followed on it, there was a reply, and in the end they clarified their
licencing, while, i think it was Thomas, who probably posted a more aggresive
mail did never even get a reply, and was probably dismissed as
yet-another-fanatic or something such.


Sven Luther


Sven Luther

Reply to: