On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:44:49PM -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: > I'm confused by options 2 and 5: ... > 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". That is correct. This is actually a very big difference, which became clear in the discussion. Option 2 says "we don't need to have the source", while option 5 says "we assume that the binary blob _is_ the source, unless there is hard proof that it is not". This isn't very clear from the voting texts, but I agree with Manoj that it is the difference between them. It is also the reason that option 2 needs a 3:1 majority (it overrides SC#1 because it says some things don't need source, which is a DFSG violation), while option 5 does not (we're only being naive, and do not trust our very strong feeling that those blobs aren't the source). > 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. Right. I have no idea why Manoj kept the title like that. It is practically correct, since this is about firmware in the kernel, where the license is GPL. However, it's not in the text, and only the text counts. > Who will be in charge of stating what complies and what doesn't > comply? As usual, everyone judges on his/her own, and the technical committee (or a GR) is needed to override a DD's decision. > 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? It says we will distribute things if we are legally allowed to do so, and the license is DFSG-free. It doesn't say we're going to check if they actually follow their license. If they don't, then (assuming this is about the GPL) we aren't actually allowed to distribute it. Which licenses comply and which don't doesn't seem to be a contested matter, so there's no problem there. :-) > 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). You mean s/2/5/, right? You are correct, AFAICS, that these mean the same. The context when they were proposed was different, though: Robert assumed that there are DFSG-violations, and that the release team is ignoring them (AFAIK there are indeed bugs which claim DFSG-violations, with a lenny-ignore tag). The proposal means to delay the release until those bugs are fixed. Proposal 5 means, as I wrote above, that those bug reports are only a guess, and that we should not block our release as long as nothing is proven. If I understand the release team right, this is their position as well, which is why they claim that placing those lenny-ignore tags was within their power (and with this argument, they are correct IMO). I hope this explains, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature