[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Splitting out Choice #1 from vote_004



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.

>   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


> 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.

        manoj
-- 
The reason that every major university maintains a department of
mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those
people.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: