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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny



Hi,

no need to cc: me, I read -vote.

On Thursday 30 October 2008 18:29, Robert Millan wrote:
> I hereby propose this General Resolution:
>
> 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)
>
>
> Option 3 (allow Lenny to release with 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 (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 fixing of DFSG violations as a
> best-effort process.
>
> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
> majority)

I second to vote on all there three options, under whatever title they are 
summarized.


regards,
	Holger

Attachment: pgpslpEOo2m6r.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: