Re: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:52:57AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:17:56AM +0200, Sven Luther <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Notice how SC5 says : "we support their use and provide *infrastructure
> for non-free packages*", which clearly means we provide ftp space for
> non-free packages, not installing non-free firmware on our installer
Oh ? Please tell me which dictionary says that infrastructure means ftp
archive ? We especially removed the "ftp area" wording from the social
contract for this purpose in the pre-sarge GRs.
I believe you could call the "installer media" and their own .udeb archive,
infrastructure needed in order to install debian, no ?
And anyway, the intent is clear, we promise in SC5 to support our users which
need non-free, and purely and simply removing tg3, acenic and a bunch of other
modules, without a non-free installer or support for them in our installer is
clearly a violation of SC5.