Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
I still don't see what d-vote has to do with this. Distributability IMO is
an issue that is the province of package maintainer and FTP masters.
Given a GR can reverse decisions of FTP masters about it, which is a sort
of negative instruction, I think
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 07:50:49AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
List masters, this is evidence that Frans is not going to stop this, and as
i
asked yesterday, i now re-iterate the demand for his ban from debian-vote.
Come on, calm down. That one was
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 08:06:31AM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 07:50:49AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
List masters, this is evidence that Frans is not going to stop this, and
as i
asked yesterday, i now
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 08:06:31AM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 07:50:49AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
List masters, this is evidence that Frans
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:38:08AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 08:06:31AM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(blah blah blah blah)
*sigh* and here it starts again...
And you have again to
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061006 01:21]:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of
turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for.
It was rather because someone has an urge
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Sure. However it makes no sense having a discussion about individual blobs
or, even worse, about whether these are distributable under the GPL at all.
As Steve has pointed out repeatedly, that last responsibility lies with the
maintainer (the kernel
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:05PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Frederik's proposal as amended by Manoj has been seconded by:
[...]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is not a second of Frederik's proposal.
On Friday 06 October 2006 14:19, MJ Ray wrote:
As I've pointed out and repeat again here, getting this wrong may cause
criminal liability of some resellers and mirrors.
Ack.
I think it's fair
for -vote to issue a clear position statement and (hopefully) protect
the project from attack if
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:03:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I believe that distributing firmware written in chunks of hex is in
compliance with the GPL, and repetition of your arguments isn't going
to change that belief.
Do you really
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:49:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 06:12:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:20:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anthony, this is bullshit.
Sven, if the GPL prohibits us from distributing the code, we (which is
to
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:04:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:49:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 06:12:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:20:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anthony, this is bullshit.
Sven, if
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 04:55:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:03:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I believe that distributing firmware written in chunks of hex is in
compliance with the GPL, and repetition of
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:08:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed, so we need to strip those GPLed firmwares ?
I'm not going to repeat myself on that again.
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this
Anthony, this is a strong breach of thrust. When you asked me to
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:28:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:08:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed, so we need to strip those GPLed firmwares ?
I'm not going to repeat myself on that again.
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include
Hi,
first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take
part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer
IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to hold the
important information for the vote, isn't it?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Thursday 05 October 2006 11:43, Frank Küster wrote:
first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take
part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer
IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to hold the
important information for the
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 05 October 2006 11:43, Frank Küster wrote:
first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take
part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer
IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to
Hi list masters and DPL,
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues,
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a
time as he is able to discuss issues,
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues,
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a
time as
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar
issues,
i now officially
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar
issues,
i now
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:55:50PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:19:55PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
The current discussion in no way helps
the release of Etch.
Why not *name* the drivers that get an exception? This way, anybody who
*really* can contribute more than general doubt has to do it now, before
the vote.
The reason
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Frederik's proposal as amended by Manoj has been seconded by:
[...]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is not a second of Frederik's proposal. Does it still count?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of
turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for.
It was rather because someone has an urge to feel power flowing through
their body by banning
On Thursday 05 October 2006 17:19, Frank Küster wrote:
I can understand that. However, I'd rather have that discussion before
the GR than after it, when it turns out that people do *not* agree about
the meaning of it...
Sure. However it makes no sense having a discussion about individual
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
My, just as amateurish, standpoint is: the preferred from of
modification of code for firmware blobs included in a driver that is
otherwise coded in C (or assembler or whatnot) - and for that matter
for images, video and even documentation - is whatever
On Friday 06 October 2006 02:46, Don Armstrong wrote:
If you have specific questions about what the GPL says and means,
please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to clarify it before putting the
archive in a position which is legally hazardous.
Right, which was exactly my point: this discussion does
On Friday 06 October 2006 02:46, Don Armstrong wrote:
This is not the case. A trivial counter example is the distribution of
a binary object which is statically linked to (or otherwise in
combination forms a derivative work of) a GPLed codebase, where the
copyright holder of the binary object
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have proper
license,
Ah, no, i forgot to change this to what Manoj suggested this morning :
We further note that some of these firmware do not have individual license,
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:05PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Frederik's proposal as amended by Manoj has been seconded by:
[...]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is not a second of Frederik's proposal. Does it still count?
It's a second of the
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote,
As per 4.2(5) of the constitution, it's required that any developer
may post to the list designated for proposals, sponsors, amendments,
calls for votes and other
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:28:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have proper
license,
Ah, no, i forgot to change this to what Manoj suggested this morning :
We further
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 02:23:17AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Sorry, my comments were general and aimed at several persons participating
in the discussion. (Though it would be foolish to deny that Sven was one of
them. And it is also no secret that I find Sven's total domination (as
evidenced
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:27:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote,
As per 4.2(5) of the constitution, it's required that any developer
may post to the list designated
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
List masters, this is evidence that Frans is not going to stop this, and as i
asked yesterday, i now re-iterate the demand for his ban from debian-vote.
Come on, calm down. That one was neither insulting nor attacking.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:13:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Err, that is a regression from the current version. Option 3
got dropped from what we have now.
Yeah, i took the first points from Frederik's original proposal, and missed
yours.
That said, i have some trouble
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:20:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anthony, this is bullshit.
Sven, if the GPL prohibits us from distributing the code, we (which is
to say ftpmaster) won't distribute it. There's no way of phrasing a GR
to change that.
I don't believe the GPL does prohibit us from
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 06:12:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:20:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anthony, this is bullshit.
Sven, if the GPL prohibits us from distributing the code, we (which is
to say ftpmaster) won't distribute it. There's no way of phrasing a
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I believe that distributing firmware written in chunks of hex is in
compliance with the GPL, and repetition of your arguments isn't going
to change that belief.
Do you really think that the GPL contains an exception for firmware
blobs? Or that the
Hi,
to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact be
clearer, and has also suggested to take
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/people/jurij/firmware-position-statement.txt?op=filesc=1
into account. I'll try to
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Hi,
to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact be
clearer, and has also suggested to take
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
+ | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
+ | firmware leads to a violation of the license,
Uh, no we won't.
There are claims that the GPL, when applied to sourceless firmware,
doesn't provide
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch.
+ | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
+ | firmware leads to a violation of the license, if the current
What do you mean by the way we distribute
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
+ | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
+ | firmware leads to a violation of the license,
Uh, no we won't.
There are claims that the GPL, when
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact
be clearer, and has also suggested to take
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
| 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
- | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
+ | bit out; for this
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:03:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
+ | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
+ | firmware leads to a violation of the license,
Uh, no we won't.
There are claims
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:37:46PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
+ | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
+ | firmware leads to a violation of the
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:28:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact
be clearer,
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:57:07 +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
| 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting
every
- | bit out; for this
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Hi,
Let's propose the following ammendment to your ammendment, or rather propose a
new point 4.
4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit out;
for this reason, we will treat removal of
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 21:43:08 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Let's propose the following ammendment to your ammendment, or
rather propose a new point 4.
How about this wording:
,
| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
| community
Hi,
Err, that is a regression from the current version. Option 3
got dropped from what we have now.
,
| 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
|
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:11 -0500, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
6. We further note that some of the firmware does not have a proper
license, and as thus falls implicitly under the generic Linux kernel
GPL license. ...
I have a bit of trouble parsing that last bit. The GPL
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:45:54 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
, | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
software |
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:59:36PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:45:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to
know
why you seconded this.
What we want to archive, is release etch in
Qua, 2006-09-27 às 12:38 -0500, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
,
| 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; however, it is not yet
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 08:16:04AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
2) firmware under the GPL, but with missing source. The GPL is
free, but the absence of source code for the firmware blobs
makes it a violation of the GPL, and thus undistributable.
I was very careful to
On 9/29/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, the RMs seem to have some notion, from the hurried discussion we had
yesterday, that they seem to interpret your post as allowing to distribute
sourceless GPLed firmware, because the GPL licence is DFSG free.
Er, yes, because that's
On 9/28/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) firmware under the GPL, but with missing source. The GPL is free, but
the absence of source code for the firmware blobs makes it a violation of
the GPL, and thus undistributable.
Here, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second the following amendment:
,
| 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; however, it
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've previously seconded another amendment, maybe too quickly, and then
considered withdrawing the seconding because of the meeting during next
weekend and the promised new proposal. For that other amendment, it
doesn't matter anyway since it didn't get
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I was not aware that Frederik's proposal was for the Debian
project to give carte blanche to the kernel team to distribute
whatever the upstream kernel has, even if it is a major regression in
the freedom from
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,
| 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; however, it is not yet
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
| 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
| bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
| firmware as a best-effort process, and
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:45:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to know
why you seconded this.
Did he ? Frederik accepted the amendment but did not second it as far as
I see.
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:45:54 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
, | 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
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:45:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to know
why you seconded this.
What we want to archive, is release etch in time, being installable on
all hardware supported upstream. From the discussion
Hello,
I thought accepting the amendment would imply a second, but if this is
not the case:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,
| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
| community (Social Contract #4);
| 2. We
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:38:16PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
| 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
| bit out; for this reason, we will treat
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:38:16PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,
| 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; however, it is not yet
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:05:33PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
I thought accepting the amendment would imply a second, but if this is
not the case:
In fact, by accepting the amendment, you remain the proposer of the amended
resolution. So you can't second it, the seconds have to come from
Hi,
I was not aware that Frederik's proposal was for the Debian
project to give carte blanche to the kernel team to distribute
whatever the upstream kernel has, even if it is a major regression in
the freedom from the kernel released in Sarge.
Indeed, not agreeing to only
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,
| 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; however, it is
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,
| 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; however, it is not yet
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,
| 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; however, it is not yet
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 09:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
,
| 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; however, it is
79 matches
Mail list logo
