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."
Description: Digital signature