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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny



On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:22:57PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> 
> >    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.
> 
> Sorry, I fail to parse this.  You lost me somewhere around 'like all
> udebs'.  Could you please explain this in something that does not try to
> compete with german sentences in length? :)

It's the same from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 with s/Etch/Lenny/g.
A decomposition would be:

  - 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.

> (Also, isn't "we allow sourceless firmware ... as long as the license
> complies with the DFSG" a no-op?)

The license for a sourceless blob can be GPL or BSD, which are licenses
that comply with the DFSG, or it could be any sort of non-free license
(including lack of license).  Of course, the code itself wouldn't comply
with DFSG #2, but the license would.

Anyway, this specific text is already tested and "known to work" so I think
this proves it is solid :-)

-- 
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: