Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Hi, to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
> However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact
> be clearer, and has also suggested to take
> account. I'll try to suggest some changes in wording to Manoj's
> text that try to address these issues.
> This is not a formal amemdment. Rather, I'd like to openly discuss
> the text.
> The following is the full text of my Amendment
> | 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
+ | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of non-free
This is a major concession. The proposal as it stands calls
for exceptions for sourceless firmware, not any non-free firmware
which we already have been pruning from the tree.
One of the concerns I have seen voiced are about BLOBs
distributed under the GPL, and some people have asserted that these
are undistributable. This assertion is based on an unspoken
assumption that the BLOB is not the preferred form of modification,
hence the license is invalid, and thus can not be distributed. But
it is, in fact, based on that assumption; but however compelling the
arguments behind the assumption are, we don't know for sure. This
proposal suggests we defer the investigation about the validity of
the license until after etch has been released, since determining if
our suspicions are true can be time consuming.
> | 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.
+ | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch.
+ | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
+ | firmware leads to a violation of the license, if the current
Umm, that would be illegal. I am not willing to propose, and
accept, a resolution that says we should break copyright law
The second version you had is better:
> + | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch.
> + | We allow inclusion into etch even if the current license does
> + | not allow modification, or if there are hints that there exists
> + | a form more suited for modification than the binary form
> + | included in the kernel. However, we still require that the
> + | firmware has a license that allows distribution.
How many things fall under to "do not modify" style of
licenses? I dislike this more than the blob may not have source bits.
DeVries' Dilemma: If you hit two keys on the typewriter, the one you
don't want hits the paper.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C