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

Damage-control GR and XFree86 non-freedom

Is it known whether the sarge-ignore status of

#211765: xfree86: material under GLX Public License and SGI Free
         Software License B is not DFSG-free

is affected by the current situation? It is not clear from the bug
logs whether the sarge-ignore tag is due to an ordinary "we don't have
time to fix this" decision, or because the RM's interpretation of the
old SC allowed exempting X drivers on general principles?

*If* the latter is the case, then it seems that Colin Watson's
proposal (proposal C on the current draft ballot): 

>   1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
>   Social Contract:

>     We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
>     kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
>     part of our Social Contract. While Sarge will not meet this standard
>     in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the following release.

would result in #211765 not being sarge-ignore anymore, because the X
drivers are neither documentation nor kernel drivers.

I'm not sure wiether I would personally mind that in itself, but I
would very much like not to hear another chorus of "Eek! We were
tricked into woting wrong AGAIN, and now sarge will still never
release, and will not support any modern display hardware when it
does, anyway".

Would an amendment to the amendment be relevant here (if it turns out
that there is actually a problem)?

Henning Makholm                                      "Punctuation, is? fun!"

Reply to: