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

Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny

On Sun, Nov 09 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:

> * Debian Project Secretary [Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:23:03 -0600]:

>> ,----[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ]
>> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
>> | majority)
>> `----
>> ,----[ Proposal 3: (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations ]
>> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
>> | majority)
>> `----
> I don't think those lines were meant to be part of the ballot text,

        But I am leaning to think that these are accurate, and I left
 them in so people know what the ballot might look like.

> they were just Robert's opinion. And, since the vote for Etch was 1:1,
> I think these should be as well:

>     http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007

        The critical difference is that in etch we said that:
 ", and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that
    complies with the DFSG. " 

        This means that everything shipped in Debian complied with the
 DFSG, even if it did might not meet the GPL requirement of preferred
 form of source modification. As far as it went, we just did not
 investigate whether the blob was actually the format that the
 developers worked with, unlikely as that seems.

        The current amendment removes the DFSG requirement, and falls
 afoul of the social contract statement about everything being 100%
 free. The etch exception was very narrowly scoped; it only decided not
 to look into whether the firmware blob was or was not the preferred
 form of modification.

        The new exception seems much broader -- we are, for isntance,
 legally allowed to ship nvidia binary drivers, which would be
 acceptable under the current clause.

>> ,----[ Proposal 4 ]
>> |  (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
>> |  majority)
>> `----
> In this case that sentence wasn't even included in the text by Andreas,
> where did it come from?! Anyway, same reasoning as above applies.

        Yes. I thought about the proposal, and it seems to say that
 Debian shall be 100% free, except when a handful of delegates think it
 is better not to.  That override of the social contact is what earned
 this the 3:1 override. (what the foundation doc does not say anything
 about is up to the dpl and the delegates to manage as they wish, but
 overriding the foundation docs is a bigger deal).

        If this option passes, we can just amend the foundation document
 to match the current will of the people.

She has an alarm clock and a phone that don't ring -- they applaud.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: