Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 04:50:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > So, i don't believe there is much choice left to the kernel team in
> > this issue but to ask for a waiver of the DFSG compliance for the
> > kernel for etch, and hope the d-i folk take their responsabilities a
> > bit more seriously for the etch+1 release.
> Or, the kernel team could actually comply with the DFSG for the first
> time ever.
These are fine words, but how do you think they can translate into reality ?
We don't currently have the ressources to do it the way it should be done, and
evne if we did, the deficiencies of d-i will make the work we do useless.
But then, you could help, and put your actions where your mouth is, by
helping in the elaboration of an exhaustive list of such problematic firmware
hexdumps, together with their licencing conditions, their copyright holder,
and a summary of what the module is good for.
This stands for anyone having a similar discourse to yours too :)