Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> said:
>
> > | 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.
Hm, according to
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/people/jurij/firmware-position-statement.txt?op=file&sc=1
there are "Binary blobs violating DFSG for other reasons", and these
should get an exception for etch. At least this seems to be the opinion
of many members of the kernel-, d-i- and release-Teams.
> 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.
Yes, thank you - this wasn't clear to me when I suggested the first
version; Anthony has already pointed it out - see also my answer to
him.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: