On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
| Therefore the Debian project resolves that
| a) firmware in Debian does not have to come with source. While we do
| prefer firmware that comes with source and documentation we will not
| require it,
| b) we however
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 06:54:52PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 14 November 2008, you wrote:
I believe Debian has
remained important over time because, despite our various social
failings, they *respect* our ideology.
And I believe that Debian is becoming increasingly marginal
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that even if the blob is GPL'd, we don't need sources
for it?
That sounds like it would be a GPL violation.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that even if the blob is GPL'd, we don't need sources
for it?
That sounds like it would be a GPL violation.
Only if the blob is not the actual source, no?
Cheers
Luk
--
To
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that even if the blob is GPL'd, we don't need sources
for it?
That sounds like it would be a GPL violation.
Only if
Hi,
This is how things stand:
The Situation: We are close to releasing Lenny
The Problem: The kernels we are shipping have blobs that might not meet
the DFSG, and some might be in violation of the kernel's
GPL license. This would put them in conflict with the
Peter Palfrader's proposal [1] explicitly said, and I quote:
| I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution.
I don't think it's acceptable to bundle it up with the ongoing GR, since
it was not proposed as an amendment to it.
[1]:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:29:20AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- code uploaded into another cpu (a device cpu, not a SMP cpu of some
kind) does not run in the same memory space, and can thus not impact
the main software
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
If we get closer to the free side, and provide a 100% free main like we used
to,
When precisely was that?
--
-
| ,''`.Stephen Gran |
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution:
| Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into
| hardware components in order to make the component function properly.
| It is not code that is
This one time, at band camp, Peter Palfrader said:
| Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into
| hardware components in order to make the component function properly.
| It is not code that is run on the host CPU.
|
| Unfortunately such firmware often is
Hi!
Jens Mänz schrieb:
Wir haben ja 4 Benutzerrollen:
Anonymer Benutzer
Registrierter Benutzer - Benutzer, die keine Initiative sind, aber an
den Foren usw. teilnehmen wollen
Initiative (NEU)
ggf. Förderer / Sponsoren?
Administratoren
Sorry, habe gerade Netzprobleme; oder genauer: Mit
,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits as
needed ]
| Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
| them against each other. However during getting an release out of the
| door, decisions need to be done how to get a rock stable
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081114 21:01]:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution:
|
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Peter Palfrader's proposal [1] explicitly said, and I quote:
| I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution.
I don't think it's acceptable to bundle it up with the ongoing GR, since
it was not proposed as an amendment to it.
I
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits as
needed ]
| Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
| them against each other. However during getting an release out of the
| door, decisions
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 09:45 -0600, Debian Project Secretary a
écrit :
| (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
| majority)
So you get to decide which options need 3:1 majority?
Well, yes. Constitution section
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 09:45 -0600, Debian Project Secretary a
écrit :
| (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
| majority)
So you get to decide which options need 3:1 majority?
I thought it was clear
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
| We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
| all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
| case-by-case-decisions as they consider fit, and if
I know there's already a good number of seconds, but I said I'd second
this proposal, so here I do: I second the proposal below.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
* Stephen Gran:
It's not possible to express the full set of relations in a single
winner vote, as far as I can tell. It might be someone's vote to say
'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever' and simultaneously
say 'but the release team does have the authority to downgrade these bug
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
| We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
| all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
|
Le Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary a écrit :
i Do we require source for firmware in main: No
ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: No
iii What do we do for Lenny: Release
iV Do we
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we all agree that the result of Further discussion is the following,
don't we?
i Do we require source for firmware in main: As usual
ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: As usual
iii What do we do for
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we all agree that the result of Further discussion is the following,
don't we?
i Do we require source for firmware in main: As usual
ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Stephen Gran:
It's not possible to express the full set of relations in a single
winner vote, as far as I can tell. It might be someone's vote to say
'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever' and simultaneously
say 'but the release team
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:24:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
several people here think the result of Further discussion is:
Let me observe that the fact that several people here think is not
authoritative.
That said, I
27 matches
Mail list logo
