Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> 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
> into account. I'll try to suggest some changes in wording to Manoj's
> text that try to address these issues.
Thanks Frank for taking up the ball.
> This is not a formal amemdment. Rather, I'd like to openly discuss the
> > 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
> > | 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
What do you mean by "the way we distribute the firmware leads to a violation
of the license" ? This is a paraphrase of sourceless implicitly GPL-licenced
drivers ? Why not say it directly then ?
> + | license does not allow modification, or if there is no source
> + | available. However, we still require that the firmware has a
> + | license that, in principle, allows distribution (possibly under
> + | conditions we currently cannot fully meet).
The source-less implicit GPLed firmware fail this last condition though.