Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I have no problem with considering the following to be position
> > statements:
> > - Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
> > - Allow releases with known DFSG violations
> > They are interpreting the DFSG/SC.
> Actually, they are interpreting the DFSG, not the SC.
That is about 2 different issues.
The first is about firmware blobs. There are probably many
different ways to look at this, and depending on what you say
exactly you can get some firmware blobs to comply with the DFSG.
The second is about releases and DFSG violations. The
interpretation of the DFSG is not being questioned here. Just
that we can make a release with DFSG violation or not. Note that
there are more DFSG violations than just the firmware blobs.
> > But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
> > - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
> > - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
> > It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC,
> It does.
Those statements on themself do not.
> > and both seem to temporary override the Foundation Document.
> No, they don't.
> For instance, Proposal B on the latest vote read, in full:
> | Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
> | 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.
> While it doesn't do so explicitly, the statement implicitly confirms
> that "firmware blobs" violate the DFSG; however, it explicitly states
> that dealing with this, while important, does not weigh up against the
> problems caused for our users by delaying the release.
> This is an interpretation of the SC, not the DFSG, and a perfectly valid
> position statement.
That can be seen as an interpretation of SC #4 (our priorities are
our users and free software). But I don't see it offer an
interpretation for SC #1 (Debian will remain 100% free).