Re: Splitting out Choice #1 from vote_004

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 11:15:39AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:08:14 +0200, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said: 
>  
> > There are three proposals which are actually votable on :
> 
> >   1) don's : reaffirm the current social contract, and non-free
> >      firmware belong in non-free.
> 
>         According to the proposer, this should be:
>     1) Affirm that DFSG#2 applies to all programmatic works.
> 
>         There is no mention made of whether or not there could be an
>  exception made for firmware in a later vote. This is reaffirming what
>  I think the SC states right now.

Don mentioned in at least two followup mails that a separate vote on exception
for etch may be possible.

> >   2) joselin's : we make an indefinite exception for non-free  firmware.
> 
>         This creates an exception clause to DFSG#2, and in affect
>  changes the DFSG until we have other technical means to ship non-free
>  firmware in the future. Since it changes/clarifies/adds a rider ro
>  the DFSG, and says that shipping sourceless firmware in main would
>  not violate the DFSG because of this special exception, this does
>  need a 3:1 majority.
> 
> >   3) frederik's proposal : we make an exception for etch.
> 
>         This recognizes that the release may not be fully compliant,
>  but places release timing over full compliance.
> 
> > so, don's and joselin's proposal are about what we do with non-free
> > firmware in general, either it belongs in non-free as per don's
> > proposal, or either we can accept them in main, as per joselin's
> > proposal. Those correspond to my 2) above.
> 
>         From what I am hearing, Don's proposal is to counter some
>  statements that were made about how programmatic works not executed
>  on the central processing unit do not need to meet the requirements
>  of the DFSG; the proposal seems to clarify that the DFSG does apply
>  to all programmatic works, even if they are processed by a processor
>  which is not the central one (neat, thinking about processors like
>  the cell, where the central processor mostly directs traffic).
> 
> > Frederik's proposal deals with etch only, and make the strong point
> > that the kernel team believes we can move the non-free firmware to
> > non-free for etch+1, but not for etch. This one corresponds to 1).
> 
>         Or we can say that Frederik's and Joss's proposals are about
>  exceptions for firmware and releases -- one by prioritizing the
>  release, the other by creating a special exception to the DFSG#2.
> 
> How about:
> 
>  [  ] DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
>  [  ] further discussion
> 
> Followed by:
>  [  ] Release Etch even with kernel freeware issues
>  [  ] Special exception to DFSG#2 for firmware as long as required [needs 3:1]
>  [  ] further discussion

There will be a new proposal on sunday, let's wait for it before going
further.

The point though, is that the exception for etch is the important bit, and the
one with the time constraint.

How about making them separate votes, but calling for vote at the same time ? 

> > In all cases, let's vote on this now, the vote is clearly overdue
> > since almost two weeks.
> 
>         There is nothing that says the proposers can't defer asking
>  for a vote in order to have an extended discussion.

Nope, but the consitution says that the proposer or seconds can call for a
vote, which is what i have been trying to do since a couple of weeks :)

Friendly;

Sven Luther