Re: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.

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

On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:42:41AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:17:56 +0200, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said: 
> 
> > 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.
> 
>         Wrong.  It only allows us to distribute drivers that upstream
>  is implying we have sources for --  and we have no proof that the
>  sources are not in the preferred form of modification.  Guessing that
>  the preferred form of modification is not proof.

Well, we all know it is sourceless GPLed firmware, and we chose just to say
the contrary, because it is convenient to us. IANAL, so i couldn't say if this
is indeed a proper defense in court if we get sued, but i guess that it may be
problematic. But then on the otherhand, i suppose the risk of getting sued is
as negligible as the risk of getting sued over the other firmwares which are
non-distributable.

Manoj, this is just a matter of how much you can lie to yourself, and i am
sorry, but my own concience is not letting me say to the world something which
we evidently know is wrong. You may have a much loser concience for this one
point though.

>         {SNIP a whole lot of hostile text}

Manoj, ...

Please tell me (in private) what in the rest of the text you feel is hostile.
It seems a pretty correct analysis of the problem, and i don't see a single
line of agressiveness or hostily in it. But then, naturally, you are the
native english speaker, and i may severly mis-understand some nuances of what
i wrote, so please inform me of where the hostility is, so i may correct this
in the future.

And if, after you reread it, you cannot justify it as hostile, i would
appreciate if you would take the above defaming coment back.

Friendly,

Sven Luther