On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:55:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > 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) > > While I have seconded this proposal, how about a change in > wording: > > ,---- > | 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; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the > | last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the > | kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues > | have not yet been addressed. > | > | 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. > `---- > > The changes are just to item 2., which is expanded to explain a > little more about the progress we actually made in the kernel, and also > to explain these are new issues (not something we have been ignoring > for years). > > I would like to propose this as a formal amendment to the > proposal, and hope it would be acceptable to the proposer. I accept and second it. -- 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."
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature