Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> 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 
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/people/jurij/firmware-position-statement.txt?op=file&sc=1
> 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
> 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
>  > |     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.

Friendly,

Sven Luther