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 > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/people/jurij/firmware-position-statement.txt?op=file&sc=1 > into account. I'll try to suggest some changes in wording to Manoj's > text that try to address these issues.
Thanks Frank for taking up the ball. > This is not a formal amemdment. Rather, I'd like to openly discuss the > text. > > > The following is the full text of my 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 is not yet finally sorted out; > > | 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 Sarge release in Etch > > | 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 reason, we will treat removal of non-free > > | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as > > | long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and > > -> | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, > -> | as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is > -> | distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG. > > + | 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 the firmware leads to a violation of the license" ? This is a paraphrase of sourceless implicitly GPL-licenced drivers ? Why not say it directly then ? > + | license does not allow modification, or if there is no source > + | available. However, we still require that the firmware has a > + | license that, in principle, allows distribution (possibly under > + | conditions we currently cannot fully meet). The source-less implicit GPLed firmware fail this last condition though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
