Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
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 | 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 | 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. ` Manoj, i want a clarification of what this actually means for : 1) firmware like the tg3 one, which is licenced under a 'permision to distribute under an hexa dump or equivalent format' but no further modification rights. This is clearly DFSG non-free, so tg3 has to go. I am not familiar with the license here, but if what you state is correct, then yes, anything under a non-ZDFSG compliant license has to go. If I understand correctly, there is some confusion over the actual license the firmware ships under, some one said it was the GPL? Well, it was sourceless GPL, and thus undistributable. We approached broadcom over it last fall, and they after extensive discussion with their legal team changed the licencing to what we suggested, namely : * Firmware is: * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, * Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation. * * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware * data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright * notice is accompanying it. Now, since this is not DFSG free, Steve has some ideas of using the older GPL version, and making a bet that the firmware didn't change since then, or use the older firmware. 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 state that shipped upstream under a I don't understand this. You added a couple of lines to Frederik's proposal, and those have manifestedly be miscompreheneded, because people seconded it while missing the implication for tg3. compliant license -- which this case seems to meet. Arguable (and highly improbably), the firmware hex dump could be the preferred form The mention of : Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, in the later licence, clearly and without doubt says that this is not the prefered source for modification. of modification. I am suggesting we take licenses at face value for etch; and afterwards determine if _we_ can ship the firmware and meet the spirit of the DFSG and the GPL or not (since only upstream can actually sue us, legal paper tigers are not an factor). While we where trying to aim to take the intentions of the vendors, who included the firmware into mainline at face value, and waive the DFSG for the sourceless or otherwise non-free firmwares, so it is clear that your proposal fully contradicts this. 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. 3) firmware under a BSDish licence, but without source. The BSD is a free licence, but i question the freeness of binaries distributed under the BSD without source code. If the firmware is not the source code itself, then this might fall foul of the DFSG#2 (very probably the case). Also my interpretation. I also strongly dislike the notion that it is acceptable to have a sourceless firmware (and yes, if i say sourceless, it means the hexdump itself is *NOT* the prefered source), as long as the actual licence is one that is DFSG free, even though the sourceless nature of it violates the GPL or the DFSG. Friendly, Sven Luther My resolution determines that while we may have licenses which are broken, and bits of the kernel that violate the we want sources for all programs, we ship etch in violation of these things, and take care of cleaning up later, Not perfect, but lets us release a slightly imperfet kernel, allowing us to support users with hardware that needs non-free, and does not
Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:02:13PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: Hi, On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 06:40:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out; So, what progress has been made? For example: - the firmware_class infrastructure has been added in more than 100 drivers (as of 2.6.17) - the qla2xxx firmware has been dropped from the kernel sources, and is now shiped on ftp.qlogic.com - new drivers for devices requiring a firmware to be uploaded during initialization are included without embedded firmware (for example the ipw3945 driver, or aic94xx which has just been added in 2.6.19-rc) Broadcom and qlogic where approached from the legalese angle, to clarify their implicit-GPL-but-no-source licence over firmware, which made those firmwares undistributable. Everyone laughed at us over this, even upstream, but we got a serious and interested response from the vendors, and after longish discussions they provided new clarified licence. We intent to do more of this later on, but with the pressure of the release out of the way, and it is stuff that cannot be rushed upstream. Also, we prefer to concentrate for now on technical issues, using our DD time to make sure etch's kernel are as bug free as possible, and solving tedious licencing issues is secondary at best. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:38:45AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:51:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [...] But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded; though I imagine I'll have to redo this once I understand the new procedures for proposing/seconding resolutions. Of course this is your decision, but for the record I would be glad if you make use of your Super Powers so that we can vote soon, I do not see the need for more discussion. Manoj, I hope that this does not cause trouble on your agenda, otherwise please disregard this message. Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your turn, and favour issues which are technically important above bass politcking. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
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 time, being installable on all hardware supported upstream. From the discussion about this amendment, I understood this is being covered here, so I think this is a good compromise. Ok, but manaoj's amendment, which you approved, doesn't allow for that, which is why i was surprised when you accepted it. I believe, following our discussion on irc, that you probably misunderstood the impact of the amendment, and others seem to have wildly different interpretations of it from what Manoj originally meant. In this way, i beleive it is a bad amendment, if nothing else because it brings confusion as to its interpretation, and it brings the risk of us being at the same point, post-vote as we are today. I strongly urge you to recall your acceptance of it, and instead search together a better position during the irc meeting tomorrow. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
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 finally sorted out;=20 | 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 | 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.=20 ` I second this proposal. Daniel Ruoso signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente
Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
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 state that shipped upstream under a I don't understand this. You added a couple of lines to Frederik's proposal, and those have manifestedly be miscompreheneded, because people seconded it while missing the implication for tg3. The possible implications for tg3 were missed because of a lack of information about tg3's status, not because of any misunderstanding of the amended proposal. Larry's webpage documenting the status of firmware listed the tg3 blob as BSD-ish. Well, there's obviously nothing BSD-ish about a license that doesn't grant permission to modify. But in spite of [EMAIL PROTECTED], sent on September 10th, no mention was made of tg3's current non-free license until after Manoj's amendment (offered in response to my comments) had been accepted by Frederik. Yes, now that we're aware of tg3, that needs to be factored into any plan which hopes to ensure etch ships with support for installing on the maximum range of hardware. But I've already outlined a theory under which I think the tg3 blob would meet the requirements without having to further amend the proposal. compliant license -- which this case seems to meet. Arguable (and highly improbably), the firmware hex dump could be the preferred form The mention of : Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, in the later licence, clearly and without doubt says that this is not the prefered source for modification. Doubts about whether it was the preferred form for modification were never the basis for deciding to permit binary-only GPL firmware for etch; the decision was based on the assumption that the authors were acting in good faith and *intended* to grant us a license permitting redistribution, failing only due to a technicality. 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 what the resolution *says*. It says that for firmware in etch we're only going to worry about licenses, *not* source. I also strongly dislike the notion that it is acceptable to have a sourceless firmware (and yes, if i say sourceless, it means the hexdump itself is *NOT* the prefered source), as long as the actual licence is one that is DFSG free, even though the sourceless nature of it violates the GPL or the DFSG. What in the world is your point? How do arguments that GPL firmware blobs are a GPL violation do *anything* to advance the goal of shipping etch with full hardware support? You keep arguing against this amended proposal by presenting reasons why sourceless firmware is bad. These aren't arguments in favor of the original proposal: the original proposal would have allowed (or even required!) even *more* bad stuff in main, like firmware that has no source *and* has a license prohibiting modification. So how do you figure that telling us about everything that's wrong with sourceless firmware is an argument in favor of the original proposal, when the amended proposal is aimed at permitting *just* the specific DFSG problems that affect sourceless firmware? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:44:36 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your turn, and favour issues which are technically important above bass politcking. This is wrong. Denis, do feel free to call for a vote as soon as you think there has been enough discussion. There is no need for any proposal to wait upon any other proposal. If you want, we can start vote on this and any other pending proposal this weekend. manoj -- Love is the salt of life; a higher taste It gives to pleasure, and then makes it last. -- Buckingham Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
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 what the resolution *says*. It says that for firmware in etch we're only going to worry about licenses, *not* source. How can you say so? It *also* says as long as we are legally allowed to do so. When speaking of GPL, if you are worrying about license and what is legally allowed, then you are automatically also worrying about source. There is no way Debian is legally allowed to distribute sourceless GPLed firmware. Section 3 of GPLv2 makes it clear that it's just not possible. I hope you are not yielding to the pressure to release an Etch which would break copyright law, but unfortunately this seems to be the case :( -- Markus Laire Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
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 upstream license is GPL, which complies with the DFSG, and the driver is therefore included if we are legally allowed to do so. The GPL *does* grant us the right to distribute binaries without source. It also requires us to do things we cannot factually do (namely, provide the source in the same place, or upon request with written offer etc.). But I understood the phrasing of Manojs proposal that it doesn't matter whether we can actually fulfill all requirements, as long as we can distribute. You are wrong. GPLv2[1] section 7 says, among other things If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy ... your obligations under this License ... then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. And without the source (or a written offer mentioned in section 3) you can't fullfill the section 3 of GPLv2 and so you can't distribute at all. [1] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html -- Markus Laire Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:14:57 -0500, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:44:36 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your turn, and favour issues which are technically important above bass politcking. This is wrong. Denis, do feel free to call for a vote as soon as you think there has been enough discussion. There is no need for any proposal to wait upon any other proposal. If you want, we can start vote on this and any other pending proposal this weekend. Err, I should have stated that as long as the minimum discussion period is over. Denis's proposal awas seconded around 21 Sep 2006, so we are still in minimum discussion for that. Sorry about that. There have been so many of these proposals floating around I am beginning to lose track. manoj -- Some marriages are made in heaven -- but so are thunder and lightning. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:02:13PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: Hi, On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 06:40:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out; So, what progress has been made? For example: - the firmware_class infrastructure has been added in more than 100 drivers (as of 2.6.17) So, does that mean that the firmware for those devices isn't part of the kernel source, but lives in non-free somewhere? Or what exactly does this mean? - the qla2xxx firmware has been dropped from the kernel sources, and is now shiped on ftp.qlogic.com - new drivers for devices requiring a firmware to be uploaded during initialization are included without embedded firmware (for example the ipw3945 driver, or aic94xx which has just been added in 2.6.19-rc) So those drivers should go to non-free? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Draft ballot DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
Hi, This is a draft ballot. Voting is not yet open. The vote.debian.org pages may ont yet have been updated. manoj Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,1st October, 2006 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 14th October, 2006. The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to clarify the scope and applicability of item 2 of the Debian free software guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract). The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The details of the general resolution can be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOW TO VOTE First, read the full text of the GR and amendments, if any. The ballot does not claim to be complete rendition of the proposal(s), or even accurately depict the spirit of each proposal. Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 2. You may skip numbers. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 2). Make sure you have read the proposal in detail. To vote no, no matter what rank Further discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the Further discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) (or encrypted) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 22fc4edd-1f6c-454f-b204-6aa0bad0ce1d [ ] Choice 1: DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works [ ] Choice 2: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEUdRewRBACQjnvNr+xfNiAv5sMgcpWXRuMNF5leWp/o3eXbIvGj0XoTe7fs OwHxoKOUu9YNmCSmB+yWF7cwfkBcGBX6KzsGSfINZ3pjiYvvaf4GrILUv4xV7O8D AcfCpZvT+/mrKRhgFAfnoDgvRsWLOPvEBCeg+EwJcYI9xMUd28EmO0oHswCgvfhP LpDqFdPuofiO2sP4fIiQIX0D/0jsqSmd/WJF/gbArmz26p+LJhlFNrcv2jR0pWaD b1X1amoIK1rvdtRaI6bYd84K2tDQIVNzJo6S9mZQ/6zW0JcnyxFLvH0LcO9QDQ6r KFv6itHFVbNYRAfaJT3IpkXQOTM7oxodR5z/VMgEnj7yKc8zuemFH8qcxyYvjIlm DGUOA/9kGwjdlsRN7atzPEVLXfjZCd2/R2X4hLNqDJm9VleJ1H5ySfk6svzqBVjN U+tEBgbIs4r1qETah/CftXuRkvrXr+CO5UatAARgEm9WImVyBcVyXmJumz4hfuYk sET1ru+y2nnibheGRmmY6wpcznC8x136wbjtJnNBCvKnLMCzQ7RJREZTRyAyIGNs YXJpZmljYXRpb24gdm90ZSAoRXBoZW1lcmFsIEtleSkgPGdyX2Rmc2cyXzIwMDZA dm90ZS5kZWJpYW4ub3JnPohmBBMRAgAmBQJFHUXsAhsDBQkAG6+ABgsJCAcDAgQV AggDBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQwGQqITlMS+PY+gCgoLTF9cfuH4lzFXpX7QCPEfGX FncAn0RF0PNtI6s7hCTRweCuXAdtxnE+iEYEEBECAAYFAkUdRqgACgkQIbrau78k QkzpcwCfZ53PDpWeM2DLoa1dXBBY4yw7wsUAoOztNRiIaHbJbm27BrWZLAyzXJhO uQINBEUdRgAQCAD6+DmcmSxyhyOqfgElh0I7mOqWb/0tADDmhVShAnwwZhO+0EEa 6CANZ/xx0a8zb6qZMYEzBdIzy1jkCqrsdVPAqDBwyKweG33BwvNVEiMk24A+uS+H njNQZh9cgMZcaSmzNTBpjoj/Eu0qI1kqmwV9FfJSAClGwE5NVLZLcLCpEjvWXgwO jme8GHRMPmdMCroTtUl+oK9xB3tN+oLD3kywSn23pWtYQ9djkZQBPET14lY+teX2 iY46wZB86pRkri8WyHAq+O3DJa/etgQPNdu30lLDI4EaTxsPaccRLxBEOybPOsGl om8tW8ZV6SFHGLSO/dDIqAbSmRf56Qz9zFfHAAURCADuIuOLlo3+stNZUGq5QFN1 AkJmHNuMirTHkCPeXQSHzmt0M8VzpKs9jf8GKHSrUQ1b0a4Voqh+AY6CAIHVxSVJ PorAOSFCzK3Noi7O/P9Fz0ierkR9SojaaPI8FqHPViMqOULcnEA1YAku226+Jp/h 5u93VMDsjaTZx10JX9NwuydVrchI6qzVw/3NDqaKjEYrsP0mAGRNkVF7ML2CuUb2 k+g7xI5MEwVShyW6PFUmkY5WRhACCc3koLTGmNiKDweCkKMJ7MoG/rg3RxAe8JCG eSaG+EXmw/zVSxJvM6jM64ekUgCSaSHzbOCuxlgEkQZGRht+nq7wqIlX/y2xs4ny iE8EGBECAA8FAkUdRgACGwwFCQAbr4AACgkQwGQqITlMS+N6+gCfdaXZaUL8q/XV B2tkFxw7fdBXN20An2ZmLpJknAHRBCKgc/69nQHUni7u =Iczm -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- arch-tag: 1c14135a-7b23-45f7-b0d5-78e68b24d4f8 -- It's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 10:35:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:14:57 -0500, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:44:36 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your turn, and favour issues which are technically important above bass politcking. This is wrong. Denis, do feel free to call for a vote as soon as you think there has been enough discussion. There is no need for any proposal to wait upon any other proposal. If you want, we can start vote on this and any other pending proposal this weekend. Err, I should have stated that as long as the minimum discussion period is over. Denis's proposal awas seconded around 21 Sep 2006, so we are still in minimum discussion for that. Absolutely, this is why I asked Anthony if he was willing to shorten the disussion/vote period, as allowed by the Constitution. Anyway I will prepare the requested documents just in case. Sorry about that. There have been so many of these proposals floating around I am beginning to lose track. My bad, I should have mentioned this fact in my previous mail. Thanks for your time. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolutions concerning dunc-tank
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First resolution `We disapprove of dunc-tank': -8- BACKGROUND 1. Anthony Towns, the current Debian Project Leader, has suggested funding the Debian Release Managers' living expenses during the forthcoming release. 2. Following informal opposition during internal discussions, Anthony Towns has started soliciting, in a private capacity, donations for a non-Debian-controlled fund for this purpose. OPINIONS OF THE DEBIAN DEVELOPERS 3. Firstly, we would like to thank the Release Managers and the Leader for their efforts. We have no disagreement with the Release Managers. 4. However, we, are of the opinion that (effectively) paying the Release Managers for their core Debian work devalues the work of other volunteers and is harmful to the project. DECISIONS AND REQUESTS 5. Let it be known that Anthony Towns's plan does not have the support of the Debian Project, and that he is not authorised by Debian to take donations for this purpose. 6. The Project requests that the Release Managers should not accept any funding for their core Debian activities without the consent of the Project. 7. The Project requests that potential donors do not give to the fund, described in paragraph (2) above, set up by Anthony Towns. 8. For the avoidance of any doubt, any decisions by the DPL or Delegates in pursuit of the plan described in paragraphs (1) and (2) above are overruled with immediate effect. 9. Everyone is requested to interpret this resolution, and make any further decisions, as are necessary to give full effect to our wishes. -8- Second resolution `We approve of dunc-tank': -8- BACKGROUND 1. Anthony Towns, the current Debian Project Leader, has suggested funding the Debian Release Managers' living expenses during the forthcoming release, as an experiment. 2. Following internal discussions, Anthony Towns has started soliciting, in a private capacity, donations for a non-Debian-controlled fund for this purpose. OPINIONS OF THE DEBIAN DEVELOPERS 3. Firstly, we would like to thank the Release Managers and the Leader for their efforts. 4. The Project broadly approves of the experimental plan. DECISIONS AND REQUESTS 5. Let it be known that Anthony Towns's experiment has the support of the Debian Project. 6. The Release Managers and Donors are requested to cooperate with the experiment as seems reasonable and appropriate to them. 7. The Project requests that after the release, the experiment will be evaluated by project and community, and that the Leader will formally report. If it is thought broadly successful, processes of this nature should be established fully as an activity of the Debian Project. -8- Third resolution `We do not want to state an opinion': -8- 1. The Developers note the existence and activities of the dunc-tanc project. 2. We do not believe it appropriate for the Project as a whole to address dunc-tank in a General Resolution. -8- Seconded (all three). Peter -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFHXWzYj5J4IdrJS8RAjffAJ0fgVAiQKVz0XmoaHEa5xDUrvZE5wCdFRz/ J28b5oWunwXEv0FDV55KpmU= =pe2V -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Encoding of web page for vote_004
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:35:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: ... The details of the general resolution can be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 I am wondering on the encoding of this web page. It's source seems to use UTF-8 for names such as: René van Bevern Frank Küster But the HTML page start with, meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 This at least confuses my browser. Is this only me? I hope my mail setting encodes this page well. Osamu
