On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 09:46:32PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:01:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
He has full control of it, in the sense that it is often binary only, and
that
he produces it, and not some third party (like the operating system vendor).
Also,
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:01:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
He has full control of it, in the sense that it is often binary only, and that
he produces it, and not some third party (like the operating system vendor).
Also, i believe that modifying the firmware, like you propose, usually voids
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
communications
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:13:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Speaking as someone with experience of the software rather than hardware
side of this I'd call FPGA images hardware. From the point of view of
working with it it looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I think the real question is How does us refusing to ship non-free
firmware help free software?.
WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING DOING THAT. I hate to shout, but *have* you heard of
non-free? It was mentioned in the post you're replying to!
I did. And it's not part of
Joey Hess wrote:
1. The archive did not support a non-free section for udebs until today.
Done.
2. libd-i and anna do not support multiple udeb sources, but can only
pull from one at a time; noone has yet fixed this
mrvn pointed out that true multiple source support isn't needed for this
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:55:43PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
1. The archive did not support a non-free section for udebs until today.
Done.
2. libd-i and anna do not support multiple udeb sources, but can only
pull from one at a time; noone has yet fixed this
mrvn
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
For this
MJ Ray wrote:
I think the idea that refusing to ship non-free firmware in main will
strengthen demand for free firmware is worthy of consideration. Debian
helps users to take control of their operating system. Increasing the
demand for free firmware might also help users to take control of
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
fibrechannel
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:28:56AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:47:42AM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:25:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The idea is that the firmware is
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:47:42AM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:25:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish
information which the vendor
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:03:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Within a Debian context people normally seem to use the term firmware
to mean any binary blob that gets programmed into hardware. This could
include things like register settings or FPGA images as well as programs
to execute on
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
communications equipment. We avoid ROMs as much as possible, because
they are
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I am bothered that there is never a definition of firmware here.
Please note in this
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:54:13PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I am bothered that
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please note in this subthread, that Steve ist talking about ``device
firmware'', whereas this subthread is talking about ``firmware'' in general.
And note how the line blurs when you consider a peripheral firmware which is
using the same set of chips
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 04:50:45PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please note in this subthread, that Steve ist talking about ``device
firmware'', whereas this subthread is talking about ``firmware'' in
general.
And note how the line blurs when
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's say i have a wireless chip, which includes a pci interface which can be
either host or device, a wireless interface to some antenas, an arm core, some
ram and flash.
[explanations snipped]
This is not a 100% real example, since i am not aware of
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 05:49:47PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's say i have a wireless chip, which includes a pci interface which can
be
either host or device, a wireless interface to some antenas, an arm core,
some
ram and flash.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it's the latter, I maintain that this is precisely the subject matter of
the proposed GR; we obviously *don't* have agreement in Debian over what
should or should not be considered a program, so I think that's begging
the question.
However, your
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
relevant part is this:
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device
firmware shall also not be considered a program.
I as non native speaker understand that as this: [...]
Yeah, but then way not say it clearly, and say that we
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
communications
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
opposite is true. I design
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Poole wrote:
I'm not going to argue with your previous points, which are all
basically accurate.
Related to (a), current programmable hardware cannot run *any* CPU at
speeds that most users would accept for desktop use. However, solving
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] de Raadt firmware I have found:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1098992287663.html
And http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550:
Thanks. (Neither were in the OpenBSD list archives...)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program.
Suppose we had in our possession the source code and an assembler for
it. Surely then it would be obviously a program.
thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I am bothered that there is never a definition of firmware here. It
seems to me that if you gave one, it would be something like:
firmware
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you and I discussed previously on IRC, I don't agree with this amendment.
The premise of my proposal is that we are *not* granting an exception nor
redefining any terms, we are merely recognizing a latent definition of
programs that has guided
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Notice that the bios or other firmware used on most machines today is also
refered as firmware. The original definition is, i believe, any kind of code
provided by the vendor of said device, and on which he has full control, so
firmware was non-free by
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:26:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Notice that the bios or other firmware used on most machines today is also
refered as firmware. The original definition is, i believe, any kind of code
provided by the vendor of said
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:23:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I am bothered that there is never a definition of firmware here.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux +
userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in
the flash of the board.
Wow. I thought that doesn't run on the main CPU was entirely
indefensible.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish
information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you.
I see. If I buy a standard-issue Dell computer, then Windows is
firmware, right? (Dell does provide it,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux
+
userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in
the flash of the board.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:25:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish
information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you.
I see. If I buy a standard-issue
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program.
I am not sure, it's not very funny to me. But it worked pretty well
until you and a few other people started pretending we have been
confused for all these years and actually meant something else.
Suppose
Nathanael Nerode writes:
If you want to amend the DFSG to state
3. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
code as well as compiled form. However, this requirement does not apply to
firmware, defined as insert your pet exemption here.
I
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
snip
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device
firmware shall also not be considered a program.
This would require us to amend the foundation document
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Indeed, all the references I have found tell me that firmware
is computer programs.
Interesting, as I note that *none* of those you quoted do so -- although
some do say that it is software that is stored in less-volatile
storage than RAM.
Given the scale
Kurt Roeckx wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00205.htm
I'm not sure about those 46 that already use request_firmware()
I see no reason to take them out. I listed them as a measure
of success, at least with recently added drivers.
It would be interestig to know if any of
#include hallo.h
* Frans Pop [Wed, Aug 23 2006, 02:28:30AM]:
Seconded.
Also seconded.
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
#include hallo.h
* Joey Hess [Wed, Aug 23 2006, 02:15:59PM]:
Anthony Towns wrote:
If it makes sense, what are the major difficulties/inconveniences/whatever
that were found in having this happen for etch, that will need to be
addressed to achieve an etch+1 release that's both useful and
[Eduard Bloch]
. Ship a separate non-free CD.
* Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements.
How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think there is a plenty of space on the
non-free CD for those, together with udebs and boot images.
Because it implies that we provide
Hrm, maybe this thread should move elsewhere.
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:35:00AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Eduard Bloch]
. Ship a separate non-free CD.
* Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements.
How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think there is a
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:24:47AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
Thanks for saying those things, which i was thinking myself, but could not
have expressed without being seen as a whiner.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do
the DFSG require for works that are not programs as previously
understood in Debian? Several rounds of general resolutions have now
given us answers for some
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:01:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:12:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
I would like to see some language to the effect that we make the
exception for firmware only in the cases of data that use the moral
equivalent of the kernel
#include hallo.h
* Peter Samuelson [Sat, Aug 26 2006, 05:35:00AM]:
[Eduard Bloch]
. Ship a separate non-free CD.
* Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements.
How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think there is a plenty of space on the
non-free CD for those,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion has indeed been going on for a while. The most important
arguments seem to be that one side is saying It must be Free! while
the other claims There is nothing useful in making it Free.
Wrong. The real other argument is there is nothing useful in making it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. We just keep providing the official free images. And someone else will
provide the non-free variants.
Yes: Ubuntu.
This scenario would reflect exactly the
situation that already exists WRT Debian as in (free) Debian and Debian as in
Debian + non-free +
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't
#include hallo.h
* Sven Luther [Sat, Aug 26 2006, 06:21:54PM]:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:24:47AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
Thanks for saying those things, which i was thinking myself, but could not
have expressed without being seen as a whiner.
You know, it's always the
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 09:31:58PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Sven Luther [Sat, Aug 26 2006, 06:21:54PM]:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:24:47AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
Thanks for saying those things, which i was thinking myself, but could not
have
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:56:49PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Luther wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00125.html
I would indeed vote for a solution including a non-free hardware,
or even better an additional CD, which contained a non-free
version of d-i
Heya,
I second the proposal quoted below.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Our voting mechanism is *clone*proof, preventing multiple identical ballot
options from influencing the outcome; but it's not proofed against influence
by toothless variants that will inevitably appeal to a broader constituency
because they say
[Matthew Garrett]
The biggest area which is likely to bite us is with network cards,
though we'll probably lose some degree of SCSI support as well.
Fortunately, at least with SCSI, users have a choice. They can buy
Adaptec or LSI 53c* and they get _truly free_ firmware (in the case of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding is that upstream has not been entirely receptive
to patches that remove non-free firmware from it. Maybe that's
because they don't have an established firmware-nonfree project
(like Debian does) into which to move that firmware?
No, it's because they
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted from wonderland.linux.it:
No, it's because they really do not believe this to be a problem, like
everybody else but a few people polluting debian-legal.
I note that several of those supporting the current source code
requirement for main don't post much to
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don't need
sources for of few types of
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:04:51PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Point 3 then seems to go the other
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We never included non-free applications in main because we felt that
there was no need to. And, indeed, even in 1993 it was possible to use a
computer without any non-free applications.
That doesn't hold with the firmware
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Sven Luther]
To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
observations and offered
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:38:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:41:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Si, am I silly and alone in thinking that firmware is binary
computer programs? Let us ask google to define: firmware:
You are silly in pretending that
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:25:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:30:33AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
You wrote:
3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works
such as
images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance with the
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:57:20AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'd actually see some restriction with regard to interoperability
(i.e. some reasonably documented interface between the firmware and
the driver code), but getting this right is likely not worth the
effort.
Hi,
Well, the point is the following. From the driver point of view, it speaks to
the device, with a given protocol, over a given hardware interface (pci,
random set of GPIO pins, etc).
No. It talks to the firmware. Or do you really believe anything else
then the firmware can give a
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:48:52AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Well, the point is the following. From the driver point of view, it speaks
to
the device, with a given protocol, over a given hardware interface (pci,
random set of GPIO pins, etc).
No. It talks to the
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:30:31PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our
users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG;
* Steve Langasek:
I'd actually see some restriction with regard to interoperability
(i.e. some reasonably documented interface between the firmware and
the driver code), but getting this right is likely not worth the
effort.
Hmm, I'm not sure what that would look like at all; as someone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer if the term firmware would be defined or at least
explained in the GR. Something like:
firmware (data which is sent to attached devices for processing and
which is not, directly or indirectly, executed on the host CPU)
I don't object to this. Is
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:30:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
he doesn't use the leader@ address even on issues related to his DPL role, as
i well know, so this is no guarantee.
AFAICT, he always signs those mails with DPL in the signature. Plus, at
least in this thread, he did use [EMAIL
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:30:33AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
You wrote:
3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require
works such as images, video, and fonts to be licensed
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:16:42 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
A position statement tells the wider community, not just Debian's
own developers, Debian's views on a subject. Don't worry about
source code for firmware, no one cares about it is not a message I
want to send. This
If there is a vote, I will vote AGAINST granting a special
exception to firmware, or considering firmware as data. Manoj's
arguments are compelling IMHO. In addition, the proposed GR makes no
mention of blobs, which are binary-only pieces of software that execute
*in kernel space*, *on the
Ludovic Brenta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is a vote, I will vote AGAINST granting a special
exception to firmware, or considering firmware as data. Manoj's
arguments are compelling IMHO. In addition, the proposed GR makes no
mention of blobs, which are binary-only pieces of software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is a vote, I will vote AGAINST granting a special
exception to firmware, or considering firmware as data. Manoj's
arguments are compelling IMHO. In addition, the proposed GR makes no
mention of blobs, which are binary-only pieces of software that execute
*in
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:23:20 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As you and I discussed previously on IRC, I don't agree with this
amendment. The premise of my proposal is that we are *not* granting
an exception nor redefining any terms, we are merely recognizing a
latent
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] This GR is a position statement, not an amendment to the
foundation documents, which means a couple of things. [...]
As I understand it, this proposal seeks to exempt parts of debian
from part of the DFSG. Why is that not an amendment to the foundation
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:24:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:16:42 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
A position statement tells the wider community, not just Debian's
own developers, Debian's views on a subject. Don't worry about
source code for
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:08:18AM +0200, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
I'd actually see some restriction with regard to interoperability
(i.e. some reasonably documented interface between the firmware and
the driver code), but getting this right is likely not
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR that
consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because assuming
rational voters I would expect the voters who approve of that option
to
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:48:20AM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The second GR was the cosmetic change one, which left us with a
(new to some) interpretation including fonts, documentation and firmware as
software needing source.
Note that this consmetic change applied to the
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR that
consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because assuming
rational voters
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:28:02AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
This is a bad example, as the madwifi HAL case is *not* a firmware:
the code is executed on the host CPU.
Cheers,
--
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR that
consist of this
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don't need
sources for of few types of works. My main problem with this is that
still a little vague
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:21:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR
that consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because
assuming rational voters I would expect the voters who approve of
that option to be a strict
Hi Steve and others,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I am in the NM queue, so my opinion does not matter, but still... I
cannot stay silent reading
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:08:33 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
OTOH, the source may require a non-free tool to render it into a
binary firmware form. If you don't have that tool, and maybe even
no hope of getting access to it, is it any longer evident that the
source is more
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:35:34 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:21:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR
that consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because
assuming rational
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is very important for
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:25:48 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
[...]
Maybe I don't quite understand your concern correctly, but isn't this
one of the
Hi -
Sorry I'm late for the party. I'm on travel, with less than
ideal 'net connections. Reading 147 messages on d-v over
a hotel's erratic wireless link was not fun.
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00117.html
None of the trolls demanding the removal
Seconded.
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-08-22 15:18]:
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is very important for
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't also be?
The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or devices containing
ROM chips, I will expect those chips to come with source
I second the proposal below.
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is very important for software freedom, but at the same
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:12:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
I would like to see some language to the effect that we make the
exception for firmware only in the cases of data that use the moral
equivalent of the kernel load_firmware interface, so that it's clear we
aren't talking about the
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi folks,
Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
require for works that are not programs as previously understood in
Debian? Several rounds of general resolutions have now given us answers
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
