Re: Proposal: Apologize for releasing etch with sourceless/non-free firmware
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:16:28 -0700, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> said:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> I'd add something to say that this is *really* the last time we
>> postpone the fixing of the issue and that no further GR should
>> change that.
> Why? That can't possibly be binding?
What makes you think that? The developers, by a GR, can
preemptively take the release decision that etch + 1 would not be
released with non-free software in the kernel, and that non-dfsg bits
in main, which violate the SC, would, for once, actually be really
Why does this not fall under takeing decisions that the
delegates are empowered to take bit?
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always
valuable. Thomas Jefferson
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C