[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [AMENDMENT] Re: seconds searched for override of resolution 007 needed.

Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
I want to amendment the following proposal:

Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the "firmware" mentioned below
designates binary data included in some of the linux kernel drivers, usually as
hex-encoded variables and whose purpose is to be loaded into a given piece of
hardware, and be run outside the main memory space of the main processor(s).

  0. This resolution overrides the resolution just voted

  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, both upstream and in the debian packaging; however, it is not
     yet finally sorted out.

  3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit out;
     for this reason, we will treat removal of problematic firmware as a
     best-effort process, and in no case add additional problematic material
     to the upstream released kernel tarball.

  4. We allow inclusion of such firmware into Debian Etch, even if their license
     does not normally allow modification, as long as we are legally allowed to
     distribute them.
  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.

And replace the text with:

We, the Debian project, find freeness that we want for firmware used by
the kernel is an important question, and that we will have to deal with
this.  However, we think that we as a project need more time to deal
with it, and having more general resolutions isn't going to solve this.

Therefor we will not have another general resolution about firmware until
after the release of etch and atleast 6 moths have passed since this
general resolution.  This does not mean we will not discuss this issue,
or work on getting things better.

I'm open for suggestions on how to better word this.

Why are you trying to get a decision from Debian developers if the decision can be overridden by the release team as state in the "Release standards" [1]:

"Further to this, certain issues may be exempted from being considered
release critical for etch by the release manager. This is expressed
by tagging the report "etch-ignore"; this should not be done without
explicit authorisation from the release manager."


[1] http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt

  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   aurel32@debian.org         | aurelien@aurel32.net
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net

Reply to: