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

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.
> `----

Note that firmware is no program AFAICS...

>         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.



Reply to: