Re: seconds searched for override of resolution 007 needed. (Was: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:54:18PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:07:02AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Ok, since the proposal in its amended by Manoj form passed, we need to add an
> > amendment to this proposal, accordying to Manoj, so that we don't have two
> > proposals in effect at the same time, leaving it a full mess.
> Which 2 proposals are in effect that conflict? We only had 1 vote on
> this as far as I know, so I don't see how it can conflict.
This is a new proposal, which was not in the ballot, because Manoj hurried the
election along the way, while he knew the kernel team was working on a better
proposal. It actually says the contrary of what the resolution we just voted
says. This proposal will go to vote in a week or so, since it has enough
seconds, and if approved, it will be in direct contradiction to the current
proposal on many points.
Have you actually read the resolution which was voted ? Have you voted for it,
and if so i am interested in knowing what you thought you where voting for.
> > So, i propose this amendment, as discussed with Manoj, and need your seconds
> > on this one too.
> > === START OF PROPOSAL ===
> > 5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have individual license,
> > and thus implicitly fall under the generic linux kernel GPL license.
> > We will include these firmware in Debian Etch and review them after the
> > release. Vendors of such firmware may wish to investigate the licensing
> > terms, and make sure the GPL distribution conditions are respected,
> > especially with regards to source availability.
> > 6. We will include those firmware into the debian linux kernel package as well
> > as the installer components (.udebs) used by the debian-installer.
> > ==== END OF PROPOSAL ====
> > Only change, is the addition of clause 0. which states the override. I am not
> > totally satisfied by this text, so if someone has a better idea, it would be
> > nice.
> Atleast points 5 and 6 aren't in GR we voted on either.
Indeed. This is a completely different proposal that the one under vote, whose
original text amended in this, is at :