Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Agreed, if we can make a dent in the non-free stuff in a reasonably
> short period. Then it'll work fine. If we delay too long, then we'll
> leave many of our users in their (current) worse situation and (even
> worse) we'll be more likely to be push many of them towards installing
> other (even less free) systems instead.
At this point, I'd be perfectly satisfied if Ben Hutchings work
was vetted and we consider it as the basis for the lenny kernel
images. It handles most of the issues in the kernel image itself.
I must confess ignorance of what it would take in the
debian-installer to accommodate the changes. If it turns out that 2-3
monhts is not enough to make the changes in the installer, and we fail
the "short period" test, then I would be happy with an GR and
announcement like we made for etch, that we failed to quite meet the
DFSG free kernel, but we fixed all the issues we knew about in the etch
timeframe, and the new blobs were only recently discovered, too late to
make the release.
I do not want the perception to spread that we have become so
blase about releasing non-free bits in main that it comes under
"business as usual" rules here.
Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time allotted it.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C