Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
----- "Steve Langasek" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> No, I'm pretty sure you're the only one harping on /that/ point. None of
> the GR proposals mandate a particular interpretation of the legality of any
> component of the archive, the release team has never indicated that they
> intended to ignore legal problems when releasing, and popular vote is a
> stupid way to decide questions of law.
It was, and is, my perception that people were trying to get sourceless binary executables into the distribution and I took exception with that. You may question my comedic MAME argument but I think it clearly illustrated the point that something doens't stop being software just because it is on a ROM and executed by a weird processor. The fine points of how a "binaries are source" argument interacts with the GPL is secondary to my primary complaint.
Now, I understand that some of these "binaries" are, like, 64 bytes of code (or data?). That really does suck but I don't think we should say "short mysterious sequences of bytes with undetermined function are allowed" to accommodate a few weird drivers out of convenience. That's my opinion and if that makes me a "zealot", fine. Guilty as charged.
I do want to say, I still really appreciate all the work that you and everyone else involved in the release and FTP process does. I love Debian and use it every single day (practically every hour). Sorry that I'm compelled to be a zealot and bum your release high. Duty calls.
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
email@example.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315