On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:04:33PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I propose the following alternatative to "Option 2" (removes last sentence):
Or rather, I propose the following alternative which incorporates Manoj's
rewritten #2 (in addition to removing the last sentence in #4):
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; 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.
(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
--
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