Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal
This email is an excerpt from Sven Luther, sent via
private email. Ths is unedited, but incomplete, I have not included the
final paragraph of that email, since I could not defend posting that,
and this is what I am comfortable sending. The eliding the final
paragraph does not, in my opinion, detract from the content of the
On Tue, Nov 11 2008, Sven Luther wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
> In order to avoid the mess that was the the etch vote, could you please
> clarify what exactly is meant by :
> and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that
> complies with the DFSG.
> because this is subject to controversy, and i think we should avoid
> confusion at this point.
> Some may argue that it is enough for a binary-only firmware to be put
> under a source-less BSD-like license, and this is the kind of license
> that you mean here, but what is the fundamental difference between a
> blob which is issued of a BDS-like license where the license holder
> chose to do a binary-only release, and a firmware blob which has a
> distribution license not mentioning sources at all, like is the common
> Sure, you could say that the BSD is a free license, but there is
> absolutely no difference either practical or ideological, between these
> two cases, since in both cases the firmware blob is considered non-free
> by the DFSG.
> As such, it seems to me that the above sentences contradicts itself, and
> nullifies the rest of the proposal, which was already my critic
> concerning the etch vote.
> Could you thus clarify your thoughts, and give some example as to what
> you consider a firmware blob which could be distributed in main under
> your proposal, and another which could not.
> Please forward this mail to the mailing list, since i am being
> Sven Luther
Capital Punishment: The income tax. --anonymous
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C