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. Cheers, -- 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