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 reason, we will treat removal of sourceless >> + | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of non-free >> >> >> This is a major concession. The proposal as it stands calls for >> exceptions for sourceless firmware, not any non-free firmware which >> we already have been pruning from the tree. > Hm, according to > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/people/jurij/firmware-position-statement.txt?op=file&sc=1there > are "Binary blobs violating DFSG for other reasons", and these > should get an exception for etch. At least this seems to be the > opinion of many members of the kernel-, d-i- and release-Teams. I see this item (3): ,---- | This category includes firmware which contains obfuscated | source, or is not allowed to be modified. While less numerous | than category 2, removal of drivers in this category will also | have a significant negative impact on our users. `---- Obfuscated sources are again an assertion, in that they are not the preferred form of modification; I'd defer the investigation of that assertion to post etch. Has anyone done a survey to see how many "do not modify" blobs we are talking about here? I would like to see a narrow exception for the do-not-modify blobs people feel are required for initial install, rather than opening a blanket exception for the rest of the kernel a well. manoj -- Where there is much light there is also much shadow. Goethe Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
