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

Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware

On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So below is a proposal that I'm seeking seconds on to establish how DFSG#2
> should be understood to apply to firmware -- i.e., that for Debian's
> purposes firmware should be considered data, not programs, and along with
> other data we should only encourage, not require, source code for firmware
> included in main.  [...]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:28:30AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Seconded.

Could I get a clarification from either the RM or d-i teams on something?

Independent of whether it's required by the social contract or the
DFSG or whatever, I thought moving non-free firmware into non-free was
a release goal for etch, and if we're not going to meet it for etch,
I think we should definitely prioritise it for etch+1.

Was/is that right? Does it even make sense?

If it makes sense, what are the major difficulties/inconveniences/whatever
that were found in having this happen for etch, that will need to be
addressed to achieve an etch+1 release that's both useful and convenient
for both people who need/want non-free things, and those who want a
completely free system?

(FWIW, non-free udeb support should finally be working properly as of
next pulse)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: