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

RfD: Proposed General Resolution on Sarge Release

I wonder if we have (or want) a resolution that would explicitly
exclude sarge from a stronger interpretation of the social contract
than it was on April 1st?

That would not have to change a foundation document again and hence
don't require a 3:1 majority.  It would also allow the Release Manager
(and others) to keep the old policy of sarge.

Since I don't believe that the clarified wording of the Social
Contract is wrong, I don't want to edit it back, of course.  However,
I agree that it is unfortunate that the clarification may have had a
bad timing and seems to delay the release of sarge.


This resolution covers the initial release of the Debian operating
system code-named sarge, all security updates to sarge and all stable
updates for (also known as point releases of) sarge, furtherly named
The Release.  This resolution does not cover any releases made after
the one code-named sarge.

The goal of this resolution is for the Debian project to be able to
release The Release with an acceptable policy in an acceptable

This resolution resolves that The Release is not bound to a stricter
interpretation of the Social Contract and the Debian Free Software
Guidelines than it was on April 1st, 2004.

Furthermore, this results in the following regressions for The Release

 . Documents released under the GNU Free Documentation License don't
   have to to be removed from the Release

 . Firmware blobs that are distributed (e.g. in the Linux kernel or
   XFree86) under a non-free license don't have to be removed from The


I wonder if such a GR should cover firmware blobs that were
distributed under the GPL but not provided in source.

Would this be sufficient for a charter for Anthony Towns to go back to
the older sarge-policy with regards to its release?



PS: Many thanks to Henning Makholm for providing the overview he provided.

No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly
to answer.   -- Perl book

Reply to: