Re: call for seconds: on firmware
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <email@example.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>>> Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
>>> aside, I don't think the release team is overriding the social contract,
>>> but chooses a certain interpretation (that I think is the correct one
>>> btw). Other people obviously prefer a different interpretation, and so
>>> the relevant question is: Whose interpretation is the binding one?
>>> Currently, it seems to me that unless decided otherwise by a GR, the
>>> release team has the final say (as explained by Russ).
>> When you say "chooses a certain interpretation", are you referring to the
>> one in which SC #4 is interpreted in a way that cannot be complied with no
>> matter what, only to use this impossibility as proof that SC #4 and SC #1
>> contradict each other, and in turn resolving that because the SC is
>> inconsistent, SC #1 is meant to be read "figuratively"?
> I discussed this with Andi in the past, so let me answer: From our point
> of view, SC#4 is relatively clear: Our users need to be able to use a
> stable release of Debian and the free software community (not "free
> software"!) needs us to spread the use of _free_ software.
> Driving off people to another distribution because we have found yet
> another sequence of magic numbers that might, or might not, have source
> code somewhere is a clear violation of SC#4 in our eyes.
It is your Myopia about §5 that is distressing; you seem to
selectively read the SC as it benefits your views.
| 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
| We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
| do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
| created `contrib' and `non-free' areas in our archive for these
| works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian
| system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We
| encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in
| these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on
| their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian,
| we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free
| packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists).
The SC never said that we include things that violate DFSG #2
| 2. Source Code
| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
| source code as well as compiled form.
to be in main; it even states that `contrib' and `non-free'
areas in our archive have been designed for that. This selective
reading of the SC is one reason I believe the release team is in
violation of the social contract.
University: A modern school where football is taught.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C