Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
* Enrico Zini (firstname.lastname@example.org) [060823 10:49]:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> > shall also not be considered a program.
> I'd personally prefer the 4th point to read:
> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> shall also not be considered a program until it will become practical
> to do so.
> This would make it clear that we don't pretend to make fine-line
> statements on what is a program and what is not; also, it would not rule
> out the vision of some of us who'd like to see source code for most
> firmware as well, maybe not in etch, or etch+1, or etch+n, but possibly
> in etch+n+1.
Though I understand your motivation, I prefer to have this GR
"executable" (hm, is this the right word?), i.e. a text that has as few
as possible disambiguties. If we say "until it will become practical",
anyone can jump up even next week to say "now it is practical". I
however want a statement from all developers "they are not (now)".
Of course, the developers can revisit their decisions later, and if it
has become practical, drop the 4. in another GR when the time has come.
(And frankly speaking, the best way to make changes like that is IMHO a
GR. We just need to learn how to survive GRs without making a flamefest
out of them. :P )