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 <email@example.com> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster <email@example.com>
>> > | 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
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C