Re: Call for votes
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:45:14AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am asking Frederik to accept this
> >> > amendment, failing which, I am also seeking formal seconds for this.
> >>
> >> I would prefer that Frederik accept it, but in case he doesn't, I second
> >> this proposal:
> >
> > There is little doubt that Fredrik will not accept it, since it says all the
> > contrary to what the intention was, and makes for a useless GR.
>
> As I understand it, the proposal said "distributed under a DFSG free
> license" and meant that it has such a license statement, not that we are
> actually able to fulfill all requirements (like providing source). If
> this is ambiguous, maybe it should be worded better.
Maybe.
> I also assumed that my perception is correct that most of the drivers
> actually have such a license statement. However, I have read in your
> other post that you believe most of them are erroneously under GPL.
Indeed. Copyright holder just added the binary blob, and released the whole
driver as GPL, thus implicitly putting these drivers under the GPL. They did
so in ignorance, and don't intent to give the source code for those licences.
When approached, they simply relicenced the driver under a non-free licence
(well sourceless BSD is probably non-free under the DFSG, i wonder what
sourceless DFSG is anyway, i feel that the BSD is a source licence, not a
binary one).
> All that is very confusing. Maybe I should revoke my seconding, and
> instead wait whether the meeting on the weekend will bring us a
> "consensus" proposal.
I think so, but given the strange and changing statement of Steve, i hope we
will be able to find a common ground then.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: