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) Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature