[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 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:57:07 +0200, Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> said: 

> 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=1there
> 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.

        I see this item (3):

|  This category includes firmware which contains obfuscated
|  source, or is not allowed to be modified. While less numerous
|  than category 2, removal of drivers in this category will also
|  have a significant negative impact on our users.

        Obfuscated sources are again an assertion, in that they are
 not the preferred form of modification; I'd defer the investigation
 of that assertion to post etch.

        Has anyone done a survey to see how many "do not modify" blobs
 we are talking about here? I would like to see a narrow exception for
 the do-not-modify blobs people feel are required for initial install,
 rather than opening a blanket exception for the rest of the kernel a

Where there is much light there is also much shadow. Goethe
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: