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

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.


Sven Luther

Reply to: