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

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:28:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,----[ Option 7 ]
> |    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; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
> | 
> |    3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
> |       made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
> |       release in Lenny
> | 
> |    4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
> |       out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
> |       best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
> |       necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
> |       the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
> |       allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
> |       license that complies with the DFSG.
> | 
> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
> `----

I'm fine with this.

> ,----[ Option 8 ]
> |    1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> |       community (Social Contract #4);
> | 
> |    2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
> |       non-free bits in kernel sources, and a lot of progress has been
> |       made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a free
> |       version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
> |       release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the
> |       operating system is complete.
> `----

I find this one to be deceitful.  First, because it's technically equivalent
to "further discussion".  Second, because the release team has already
expressed their intent to infringe the Social Contract, which in principle
is supposed to have more weight (backed by 3:1 majority) than a GR approved
by simple majority (like this option would require).  I see it as feasible
that they would infringe this text as well.

Nevertheless I would merge it in my proposal if you still want me to.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: