Re: call for seconds: on firmware
* Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2008-11-18 14:47]:
> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > * Lars Wirzenius <email@example.com> [2008-11-17 19:31]:
> >> (Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
> >> > Stop your FUD.
> >> >
> >> > The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
> >> It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations is a
> >> violation of the Social Contract, on the part of the project as a whole,
> >> regardless of which individuals are making the decisions.
> > Did you ever read SC #4? It's a violation of the SC to not provide our
> > users with a usable system.
> I do not think you have read 4 and 5 together.
> 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> So, SC says we know our users might need non-free crap, and we
> shall give it to them, in `contrib' and `non-free' areas in our
That still doesn't conclude that releasing Lenny with propable issues
violates the SC. As already pointed out why should hardware that loads
firmware blobs from flash be treated different than hardware loading the
blob from a filesystem. One could conclude that even Intel CPUs are
non-free while UltraSparcs are DFSG-free placing amd64 and i386 outside