Re: The bigger issue is badly licensed blobs (was Re: Firmware poll
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:00:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > >
> > > > Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
> > > > minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
> > > > right now, because it determines whether Debian will distribute these 53
> > > > BLOBs *at all*, in 'main' or in 'non-free'.
> > >
> > > > Oddly enough nobody has proposed a GR addressing this,
> > >
> > > Because voting is an absurd means of settling questions of legal liability.
> > > It's the domain of the ftp team to determine whether we can legally
> > > distribute a package on our mirrors.
> > So, all in all, all this fuss for seven blobs ? waw, what a waste of
> > time.
> 53 + 7 = 60.
Re-read Nathanael's mail. The blobs that are concerned by all the discussion
that has happened so far, and wasted a lot of time, are 7.
The 53 are those that have licenses that technically don't allow
> Please Mike, you have lately a tendency to inflame discussions for
> nothing. You've used me to expect better from you.
I'm just pissed about all this waste of time discussing in the void while
a release is "supposed" to happen in 3 months. And here I'm not only talking
about this particular thread.
PS: Don't worry, you won't hear a lot from me since I'll be on vacation from
saturday for almost 3 weeks.