[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, Robert Millan wrote:

> 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)

        In case there was any doubt, I second this altered proposal as
 well.

        manoj
-- 
<< WAIT >>
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Attachment: pgpqNkgq3ceyC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: