Hello, The kernel team consider that neither of the two proposals currently under vote [1] are a good solution to the non-free firmware problem. Furthermore, a consensual proposal has now reached enough seconds [2] to be put to vote, and is much preferable, both in clearness of text as in actual content.
The proposal made by Josselin (Choice 2) will have a hard time to pass, as it needs 3:1 supermajority. It gives a longer term exception for firmwares beyond the etch release, which we believe not being necessary, and furthermore, it is an amendment to the original proposal from Steve, now withdrawn, and is thus less clean. The proposal originally from Frederik as amended by Manoj (Choice 1) has serious issues. It doesn't correspond to the wish of the kernel team, as expressed by the position statement at [3] following the kernel team meeting about the firmware issue. This proposal is titled : "Choice 1: Release Etch even with kernel firmware issues" but this is highly misleading, since the actual proposal in many ways contradicts this. The proposal states : 1. It forces us to not release as part of etch those firmwares removed in sarge, which include popular drivers used for installation as tg3 and acenic (Point 3.). 2. It means illegal to distribute firmwares will have to go (good), altough it is silent about the sourceless GPL ones (Point 4.). 3. It means we will not distribute firmwares with non-DFSG free licenses (Point 4.). This is highly confusing, because the distinction is made on the licenses, and not on the actual freeness, and it thus favours firmwares under free licenses, but not respecting the terms of the licenses, over those firmwares whose copyright holder has clarified their licensing, like broadcom did for the tg3 license. Furthermore, the current choice 1, which will allow to ship sourceless GPLed firmwares, should have needed a 3:1 supermajority, as it directly contradicts the DFSG. For all these reasons, the kernel team believes that the solution proposed at [3], and which already reached enough seconds, and will thus be needed to be voted on, is a better solution, and since it is not possible anymore to amend the current ballot, we urge all voters to vote "Further Discussion", and allow for the recast of a new ballot containing the better solution, and possible other amendments (like a rewording of Josselin's proposal on top of the consensual proposal for example). On behalf of the Debian Kernel Team, Friendly, Sven Luther [1] - http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 [2] - http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00183.html [3] - http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing#head-98e7641feaea08b775f4d5c58d071b77ff172c90 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]