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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny



I second the following proposals, as I believe that they should be voted
on:

(Robert Millan's unammended Option 1:)
> Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>    1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
> software community (Social Contract #4);

>    2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
> non-free bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress has
> been made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a free
> version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the release of
> Lenny until such point that the work to free the operating system is
> complete.

(Robert Millan's option 2, with expanded point 2 and shortened point 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's unammended option 3:)
> Option 3 (allow Lenny to release with any DFSG violations)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>    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 on DFSG
> compliance issues; however, they are not yet finally sorted out;

>    3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
> progress made for freedom in the packages 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 fixing of DFSG
> violations as a best-effort process.

> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
> majority)

I would also suggest adding the clause "to the best of our knowledge" to
point 3 in options 2 and 3.  I would, naturally, also second such an
amended proposal.

-- 
Hubert Chathi <uhoreg@debian.org> -- Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA         http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA

Attachment: pgpELf0l1bxE4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: