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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR



I'm confused by options 2 and 5:

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Debian Project Secretary
<secretary@debian.org> wrote:

> Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
>
>   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
>      software community (Social Contract #4);
>   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
>      firmware issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the
>      time of the last stable release have been sorted out. However,
>      new issues in the kernel sources have cropped up fairly
>      recently, and these new issues have not yet been addressed;
>   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
>      progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian
>      relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our
>      knowledge as of 1 November 2008);
>   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting
>      every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of
>      sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver
>      firmware as part of Debian Lenny as long as we are legally
>      allowed to do so.

> Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
>
>   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
>      software community (Social Contract #4);
>   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
>      firmware issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the
>      time of the last stable release have been sorted out. However,
>      new issues in the kernel sources have cropped up fairly
>      recently, and these new issues have not yet been addressed;
>   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
>      progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian
>      relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our
>      knowledge as of 1 November 2008);
>   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting
>      every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of
>      sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver
>      firmware as part of Debian Lenny as long as we are legally
>      allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under
>      a license that complies with the DFSG.

As far as I can see, the only difference between these two options is
", and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that
complies with the DFSG".

Now, my confusion comes from the title of option 5: "Assume blobs
comply with GPL unless proven otherwise", which is not at all
reflected in the text.  The text says that we will allow firmware that
is distributed upstream under a license that *COMPLIES* with the DFSG.

Who will be in charge of stating what complies and what doesn't
comply?  Where does this say that in evaluating what complies and what
doesn't we will assume that the blobs are the preferred form of
modifcation?

And then, what's actually the difference between option 5 and option
1? I really, sincerely, don't see how stating that we allow only
firmware whose upstream license complies with the DFSG (option 2) is
doing anything different of not allowing non-free firmware (option 1).

I'd be glad if someone could explain this.

-- 
Besos,
Marga


Reply to: