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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny



On Thu, Oct 30 2008, Robert Millan wrote:


> Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>    1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>       community (Social Contract #4);
>
>    2. We acknowledge that we promised to deliver a 100% free operating system
>       (Social Contract #1);
>
>    3. 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 (to the best of our knowledge as of 1 November 2008).
>
> Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with proprietary 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 (to the best of our knowledge as of 1 November 2008);
>
>    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 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)

        I second these versions of the proposed sets of
 resolutions/amendments, and just the options quoted above. (I have
 seconded in the past, but this is just to reafirm I agree with the
 changes).

        manoj

-- 
You have a message from the operator.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Attachment: pgpInc3epngKs.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: