Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues
[ Forwarded on behalf of Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> ]
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:31:40AM +0000, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-05-13, Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
> > ,----
> >| 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> >| We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works
> >| that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> >| have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for
> >| these works.
> > `----
> > As I understand it, we, as a project, have acceoted that there
> > is tension between the needs of our users, and the dictates of free
> > software; and the solution we have come up with is called "contrib" and
> > "non-free" areas in our archive.
> > Isn't that perfectly clear?
> Sure, but why the heck was the discussion if we should delay the release
> instead of moving the kernel to non-free because it's tainted with few
> binary blobs?
Because moving them to non-free was deemed a too long process compared
to the need for a timely release, which was a result of taking this up
too late in the release process, which in turn was a result of the
flamewar and anger which surrunded this selfsame discussion before the
last release, which made nobody willing to work on this topic.
Please forward this mail to the list, as i am being censored (even
though some seem to feel offended by me using that word).