Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
> | firmware issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
> | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in
> | the progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by
> | Debian relative to the Sarge release in Etch
> | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
> | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
> | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as
> | long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and
> | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch,
> | as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is
> | distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.
Manoj, i want a clarification of what this actually means for :
1) firmware like the tg3 one, which is licenced under a 'permision to
distribute under an hexa dump or equivalent format' but no further
modification rights. This is clearly DFSG non-free, so tg3 has to go.
2) firmware under the GPL, but with missing source. The GPL is free, but
the absence of source code for the firmware blobs makes it a violation of
the GPL, and thus undistributable.
3) firmware under a BSDish licence, but without source. The BSD is a free
licence, but i question the freeness of binaries distributed under the BSD
without source code.
fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to know
why you seconded this.