Hi all,
It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
do about firmware are currently:
What is the most important for the release of Etch? (202 votes) [0]
Release on time (early december) 57%
Support hardware that requires
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 17:44 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
(b) The term software as used in the Social Contract shall be
presumed only to cover
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hi all,
It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
do about firmware are currently:
What is the most important for the release of Etch? (202 votes) [0]
Release on time (early
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Obviously each of those polls only includes a self-selected minority of
the people they try to cover, but the results seem fairly consistent both
with each other, and what's been discussed so
Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a écrit :
Obviously each of those polls only includes a self-selected minority
of the people they try to cover, but the results seem fairly
consistent both with each other, and what's been discussed so far on
this list.
Those polls should never
Joey Hess a écrit :
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Not also that I found sad that the DPL try to kill this GR with his
latest mail to debian-announce. The problem is known for a long time.
How does posting straw polls of our users and developers to d-d-a manage
to look to you like an attempt to stop
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
reconsider whether the change we made in 2004 was the right one. So I'd
like to
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
large extent, just not 100%) or that we are being hypocritical.
Consider comments like:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a ??crit :
Those polls should never ever drive our choices. I've raised my
concerns with respect to those polls on -devel, and even asked you as
the DPL directly[1], mail that you
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the latest mail from Anthony Towns (Firmware Social Contract:
GR proposal), it looks like I was correct. He just try to stop this
GR by proposing his own one.
The DPL has the same right as the other developers to propose GR's
that he feels are
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:04:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you consider our ideals to be the original social contract, applied
to programs not images and firmware, we've been meeting and improving
upon our ideals every year and every release.
The reason why your proposal is
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:14:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a ??crit :
Those polls should never ever drive our choices. I've raised my
concerns with respect to those polls on
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
working out for us. The ballot that chose the current social contract
didn't have any alternatives included, and was conducted immediately
following the constitutional amendment to allow voting on non-free
removal, the non-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
large extent, just not 100%) or that we are
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:12:56PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the latest mail from Anthony Towns (Firmware Social Contract:
GR proposal), it looks like I was correct. He just try to stop this
GR by proposing his own one.
The DPL has the
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation.
Removing non-free documentation had been a planned release goal
for etch since August
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 09:26:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation.
Removing non-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
reconsider whether the change we made in
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion, a project like Debian is never ready, and never perfect.
Everybody knows that we are not meeting the freedom goals in the SC to
100% (as well as other goals)[1]. But I do not see this as a failure,
rather as a challenge. So why not try to
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
There was a second ballot, which had six options on it, namely delay
the SC change until Sept 1st 2004, delay the SC change until sarge
releases, apologise, revert to SC 1.0, create a transition guide
for the SC and DFSG, reaffirm the new SC.
The
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:53:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
working out for us. The ballot that chose the current social contract
didn't have any alternatives included, and was conducted immediately
following the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Since it appears Debian has to make a choice, which would you=20
prefer we do for etch? (197 votes) [1]
Allow sourceless firmware in main 63%
Delay the release of etch (so that we can support18%
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:48:06PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
The key point seems to be that you want to renew a discussion that,
according to many's perception, has already taken place sufficiently,
while you said somewhere that it hadn't...
The current situation appears to be that we end up
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:05:48PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
There is an ABI bump scheduled for after beta3.
I cancel this bump for pre-etch.
The main reason for this was the final implemention of support for more
than one
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:36:19PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
There's two steps:
(1) we're not going to meet the social contract for etch
(2) having repeatedly failed to meet the new social contract over
an extended period, we
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:24:13PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
So instead of trying ot change the way some developers and users think,
we'd rather change our foundation documents?
Changing our foundation documents is a way of changing what developers
and users think. At the moment we claim on
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
100% free. [...]
Please not that old myth!
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
provided
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here is my (slightly rushed) write-up of a non-free-hw compromise
option. Please second it if you think it should appear on the vote.
This amendment to [EMAIL PROTECTED] removes
the rationale and therefore, replaces authors in point 2 with
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:25:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think we
should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
represent most opinions, and work on
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Developer only poll: (83 votes) [2]
Option 1 Release etch on time
Option 3 Support hardware that requires sourceless firmware
Option 2 Do
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
You might like to consider replying to:
Subject: Re: Presumably-unauthorized Open Logo use
Date: Sat, 1
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:52:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed, but the fact that delay until sarge release won by a large majority,
shows that our DDs did indeed reaffirm the new SC,
In my opinion, it shows that at the time that was the best option on
the table. One option that wasn't on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (MJ Ray) wrote:
Hi,
3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
^
without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
We'll soon have a 200+ posts sub-thread trying
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:18:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
100% free. [...]
Please not that old myth!
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:49:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:52:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed, but the fact that delay until sarge release won by a large
majority,
shows that our DDs did indeed reaffirm the new SC,
In my opinion, it shows that at
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
You might like to consider replying to:
Subject: Re:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think we
should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
represent most opinions, and work on polishing their wordings instead of
everyone proposing their pet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (MJ Ray) wrote:
3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
^
without free software drivers yet, the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Heh, a FAQ on a website overriding the clear and explicit wording from the
license itself (Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.)? Who
would've thought...
What the FSF
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:53:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think
we
should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
represent most opinions, and work on polishing
Hi all.
We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and still
maintaining a timely etch release, so i believe that we should held a vote on
this issue sooner rather than later.
This GR, which was seen by Steve as orthogonal to his GR, is about the etch
release and not
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
^
without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
We'll soon have a 200+ posts sub-thread trying
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thus propose that we held a vote ASAP, a real vote, not a poll, about what
we are going to do about etch :
1) postpone the non-free firmware issue as proposed in this GR proposal.
2) delay etch until we finish discussing this issue and then
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:53:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think
we
should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
represent most opinions, and work on polishing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian
Perhaps, before we spend too many more years on trying to solve this
problem, we should agree on what this problem is?
One issue here is that we are trying to make a statement about what
direction we are heading. As M.J.Ray states:
The GPL is far closer to 100% free than a source-withheld
With this message I formally second aj's proposed resolution from
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
I deeply appreciate this, I believe it is the right step to bring back
Debian to its origins and hopefully will help reducing the tensions in
the project caused by the SC change.
Still, I want to ask you to
MJ Ray wrote:
3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian Free
It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning
what to do about firmware are currently:
What is the most important for the release of Etch? (202 votes)
[0] Release on time (early december) 57%
Support hardware that requires sourceless
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray wrote:
3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
the non-free archive area which
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian Free Software
Guidelines except guideline 2 (Source Code), or an archive section/area
with equivalent requirements.
This may include proprietary kernel drivers and will exclude
MJ Ray wrote:
Apart from maybe possibly getting the wrong section, I think all of those
so-called 'serious flaws' are based on misreading the proposal.
It certianly seems to be based on us having different defintions of
terms including the Debian system and drivers.
AIUI, I would word your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may include proprietary kernel drivers and will exclude important
firmwares which are not legally modifiable. Both too much and too little
at the same time.
How would you exclude proprietary kernel drivers while allowing important
firmwares which are not legally
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 17:28 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
AIUI, I would word your proposal something like this:
3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
without free firmware, the Debian installation media images may
include selected firmware from non-free
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not for some reason, for some very obvious reasons. They're not adequate
as an immediate solution to this problem because separating the firmware
from the packages that currently contain it is hard and needs development
and because d-i currently can't
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
accepted by everybody in Debian and most people outside Debian with
mindlessly following their idea of the DFSG.
I'm
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
We'll fail to meet it for firmware and logos in etch, including our own
logo, and to the best of my knowledge, we're yet to consider addressing
the license of documents like the Debian Manifesto, or the Debian
Constitution.
What? Are you
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation. It
wasn't easy and we couldn't make it in time for sarge, but we can make
it in time for etch. For etch, we have
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
didn't quote were in the proposal.
What do you mean that we can't keep the commitment to make the
kernel
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and still
maintaining a timely etch release, so i believe that we should held a vote on
this issue sooner rather than later.
This GR, which was seen by Steve as
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not for some reason, for some very obvious reasons. They're not
adequate as an immediate solution to this problem because separating
the firmware from the packages that currently contain it is hard and
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Point 2.1.1 of the Debian Constitution is relevant here. Under the Debian
Constitution, you have no grounds for expecting the d-i team to work on
this on your preferred time scale. If you want to get work done that
other people have not completed as
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am entirely happy for the d-i team to never do the work. But that
does not mean that the kernel team should therefore be allowed to go
ahead and ship non-free programs in their packages.
That's something different than what you said in your
63 matches
Mail list logo
