[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 Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:57:54PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> >         4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> > shall also not be considered a program.

> I have some problems, publically saying that binary firmware blobs
> that most probably contain a lot of small programs "shall also not be
> considered a program" (regardless of "a" or "several").  We're not
> saying Pi is 3.14 either.

> We do know that there are programs included in binary firmware blobs
> most of the time after all.

> How about the following instead?

> 	  4. supports the decision of the Release Team to require device firmware
> to be licensed in compliance with the DFSG without requiring source code for
> possibly enclosed software.

> I could imagine to say acknowledge that Debian consideres it ok to include
> binary firmware blobs without their source to code to be licenced DFSG-free.

a) the Release Team hasn't made such a decision, so it's not possible for
the project to support it. :)  Andi and I deferred making any such decision
until we could have a GR to see where the project sits on the question.

b) if it's the consensus view of the project that "program" does encompass
firmware, then I think allowing sourceless firmware into main for etch
requires overriding the DFSG, which I believe is best done with a formal
amendment to the DFSG or at least a clear statement that we know we're
overriding the DFSG.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: