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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

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

> 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,

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

Reply to: