Re: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:57:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Probably, but then choice 1. of the ballot currently under vote
> > should have had 3:1 supermajority also, which added to misleading
> > wording of the short title compared to the actual content of the
> > proposal, cast some serious doubt as to the validity of the vote
> > being currently held.
> Nope. Choice 1 (I am assuming you mean the gr_firmware's
> "release etch despite firmware issues option", though that is not at
> all clear) in no way requires anything that violates the DFSG or the
> social contract, so it does not need the super majority.
Well, it :
1. allows for releasing firmware binaries under the GPL lacking propper sources.
=> This is a violation of DFSG 2 (Source Code) :
"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
code as well as compiled form."
2. means removal of support for thos users needing non-free firmware to
install. This coupled with the staunch refusal of the d-i team to implement
non-free loading in d-i, leads to an inability of some of our users to
install on their hardware using debian, even on non-free media. This is
especially true with the removal of such popular drivers, like the tg3
driver, which will have to go with the resolution just voted.
=> This is a violation of SC4 (Our priorities are our users and free software)
and SC5 (Works that do not meet our free software standards) :
"We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities."
"We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not
conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib"
and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these
areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured
for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of
the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the
packages on their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of
Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free
packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists)."
Notice how SC5 says : "we support their use and provide infrastructure for
non-free packages". This clearly includes support for installing non-free
firmware on our installer medias.
The first point is probably uninportant, since the resolution passed by
271:42, thus more than getting this 3:1 majority. I wonder how many of those
voters didn't realize what they where voting on, but i guess we will never
know for sure.
On the other hand, thiesecond point is not really violated here, but it also
means that we need a GR vote in order to be able to release etch without a
proper support for loading non-free firmware .udebs from d-i, and that this
would be a 3:1 vote ?