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

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:

> Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.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 <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: