On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 04:50:41PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> Seconded. Thanks, Russ!
The signature check failed, and the discussion period is over.
Kurt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation
> document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1
> majority.
>
> The Debian Social
Bill Allombert writes:
> Le Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:37:08PM +0200, Philip Hands a écrit :
>> Simon Josefsson writes:
>>
>> ...
>> > I agree it doesn't make sense for either organization to change
>> > approach. I do believe that what we are seeing in this vote, however,
>> > is that Debian
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:54:01PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
> > harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
> > ever comes to
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
> harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
> ever comes to it".
>
> Or even "I've seen this in other licenses, can't hurt, let's
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 09:13:50AM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:17:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit :
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > > > Le Tue, Sep 13,
Le Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:37:08PM +0200, Philip Hands a écrit :
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
> ...
> > I agree it doesn't make sense for either organization to change
> > approach. I do believe that what we are seeing in this vote, however,
> > is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than
Simon Josefsson writes:
...
> I agree it doesn't make sense for either organization to change
> approach. I do believe that what we are seeing in this vote, however,
> is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than providing a 100% free
> Debian (guided by the DSC/DFSG) and using that as a
Le Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:23:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> > However, I'm pointing out that Debian generally follows a different
> > tactic. And I don't think that it would be a good idea for Debian to
> > switch tactics.
>
> Right, I agree, although my perception is that Debian is
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:17:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > > > Do you too
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 13/09/22 at 14:49 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>>
>> > Right. I think that it's important to realize that the FSF and Debian
>> > use different tactics to promote Free Software. The FSF focuses on
>> > promoting a clean ideology to the
On 13/09/22 at 14:49 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>
> > Right. I think that it's important to realize that the FSF and Debian
> > use different tactics to promote Free Software. The FSF focuses on
> > promoting a clean ideology to the point of ignoring practical
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> > >
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> > your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
>
> My
Le Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:29:07AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> I believe the Debian project is permitted to publish non-free installers
> under the current DSC/DFSG (which it actually is doing today; just
> hidden), but according to the DSC it is not part of the
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
more favorable to the
Le Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:19:59PM +, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> On September 12, 2022 8:23:22 PM UTC, Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> >Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> >> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
> >> non-free works
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Right. I think that it's important to realize that the FSF and Debian
> use different tactics to promote Free Software. The FSF focuses on
> promoting a clean ideology to the point of ignoring practical problems.
> The risk is becoming irrelevant, because very few people
Tobias Frost writes:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free
>> system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so.
>>
>> For example, I install the firmware-iwlwifi
On 12/09/22 at 12:08 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
> > To me, the FSF's attempts to produce an operating system lead to the
> > range of GNU/Linux distributions that came about during that time, which
> > we all still use.
>
> Right, I think both things are true.
>
> I
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free
> system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so.
>
> For example, I install the firmware-iwlwifi package on my laptop because
> I
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:23:22PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
> > non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
> > hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
> > else's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RWdELdiws4=5756s
On 9/13/22, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 21:03 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> My experience is the same as you describe, with the free installer:
>>> if you pick the right hardware, Debian works
Ansgar writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 21:03 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> My experience is the same as you describe, with the free installer:
>> if you pick the right hardware, Debian works directly today.
>
> By "right hardware", I assume you mean hardware that comes with already
>
Richard Laager writes:
> I agree insofar as: E > B > C > NOTA > D
> I put A in a different spot: A > B > C. You have B > C > A.
> E is A plus the SC modification. With E as your first choice, why
> wouldn't you put A > B?
I'm concerned about the potential complications of a conflict with the
In reading your messages, I think I have the same position as you, but
I'm confused by our different tentative rankings.
On 9/12/22 15:13, Russ Allbery wrote:
For full disclosure, my vote is likely E>B>C>A>NOTA>D.)
I agree insofar as: E > B > C > NOTA > D
I put A in a different spot: A > B
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 01:13:33PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> Wonderful -- it is good that I am able to finally express your view in a
>> way that you actually agree with.
>
>Yes, thank you very much for your thoughtful and productive engagement in
>this thread!
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:18:13PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Russ Allbery writes:
...
>Okay. But given a situation when someone comes to you with a hardware
>component that requires non-free software to work, and asks you to
>install Debian on it, would you resolve that by
>
> 1)
On September 12, 2022 8:23:22 PM UTC, Bill Allombert
wrote:
>Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
>> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
>> non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
>> hardware
Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
> non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
> hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
> else's choices
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Wonderful -- it is good that I am able to finally express your view in a
> way that you actually agree with.
Yes, thank you very much for your thoughtful and productive engagement in
this thread! It's really satisfying to be able to talk about things that
provoke
Thanks for long post, thoughtful and I only have a reflection left:
>> Okay. But given a situation when someone comes to you with a hardware
>> component that requires non-free software to work, and asks you to
>> install Debian on it, would you resolve that by
>
>>1) install the free Debian
Hi,
On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 21:03 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> My experience is the same as you describe, with the free installer:
> if you pick the right hardware, Debian works directly today.
By "right hardware", I assume you mean hardware that comes with already
preinstalled non-free
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> I think what you're missing is that this changed about ten or fifteen
>> years ago. I can now buy a new off-the-shelf computer and run Debian on
>> it *immediately* because Linux now supports modern hardware and you don't
>> have to run ancient
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> When I first got deeply interested in free software in the late 1990s,
>> I looked around and saw two basic mindsets towards free software. I'd
>> classify those as the FSF approach and the Debian approach. The FSF
>> decided to go down the
Russ Allbery writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> I recall that it took ~5 years until hardware (usually audio, video,
>> network cards) was well supported with stable releases of free software
>> distributions in the 1990's. Often it was never possible to get some
>> hardware to work with
Russ Allbery writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> Thanks -- this helps me understand the two principles at play here:
>
>> 1) having a free Debian
>
>> 2) having a Debian that works on as much hardware as possible
>
> This summary is moving in the right direction! But your phrasing of 2)
>
On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 at 19:20:29 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Steve McIntyre writes:
> > Many common laptops in the last 5-10 years don't come with wired
> > ethernet; it's becoming rarer over time. They ~all need firmware
> > loading to get onto the network with wifi. Many now need firmware
Simon Josefsson writes:
> I recall that it took ~5 years until hardware (usually audio, video,
> network cards) was well supported with stable releases of free software
> distributions in the 1990's. Often it was never possible to get some
> hardware to work with free software, especially
Steve McIntyre writes:
> Many common laptops in the last 5-10 years don't come with wired
> ethernet; it's becoming rarer over time. They ~all need firmware
> loading to get onto the network with wifi. Many now need firmware for
> working non-basic video, and audio also needs firmware on some of
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Thanks -- this helps me understand the two principles at play here:
> 1) having a free Debian
> 2) having a Debian that works on as much hardware as possible
This summary is moving in the right direction! But your phrasing of 2)
isn't the principle that I personally
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 05:00:37PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>What still puzzles me is that I regarded myself as having worked with a
>lot of computer hardware over the years, without experiencing the kind
>of situation described here. Yes, some hardware doesn't work with
>Debian, but no I
Steve McIntyre writes:
>>I think the difference of opinion is that your proposal is based on the
>>argument that it is worth compromising on the ideals of free software in
>>order to allow users to be able to run free software. I disagree with
>>that opinion. If you disagree with my
Russ Allbery writes:
> I think it is possible to argue in good faith that the Debian installer is
> not part of the Debian system as defined in SC 1. I would not personally
> make that argument, but I don't think it's an unreasonable argument to say
> that the Debian system is the packages in
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 02:16:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> However, I feel strongly that the non-free installer *has* to be
> handled differently. If not, we're choosing to fail on (some of) our
> principles. This is why I'm here with this GR after all.
So do I. Or does proposal A describe
On 9/11/22 19:41, Steve McIntyre wrote:
As far as many vendors are concerned, the firmware blobs are
basically part of the hardware. They're just provided in a cheaper,
more flexible way - loading things at runtime.
To me, this is an important part of the situation we find ourselves in.
It
Hi Russ,
As ever, I think you've described things very well here. Thanks for
this!
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 01:22:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Simon Josefsson writes:
...
>> I think I'm missing a better problem statement to motivate any changes
>> here. The ones I've tried to understand,
Hi Simon!
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Steve McIntyre writes:
>
>I read your proposals as a deep frustration with this situation and a
>desire to solve the problem faster than waiting for free software
>support for relevant hardware to materialize. I don't
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 10:37:03AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
>
>> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
>
>I disagree strongly on this.
>
>We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
>making to our
[ Apologies for going quiet again - it's been a busy few days,
including testing and publishing two sets of point release images. ]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Steve McIntyre writes:
>
>> That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks!
>
>Steve, what do
Simon Josefsson writes:
> What I'm specifically objecting to is that if Steve's proposal were
> implemented I believe the result would violate our social contract that
> the Debian system is 100% free.
This part I understand, and indeed this is why I proposed a ballot option
to modify the
> Is this helping our users or does it help the free software cause if those
> users just go somewhere else and asscociate Debian with "broken"?
> Those are lost users, and they will never learn and then care about their
> missing freedoms.
Not only they are lost users; but they will spend the
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> >> appears solved or possible to solve.
> >
> > As I understand it
On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 08:19 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
> > Since the hardware most users use causes the first problem, the people
> > fielding these support requests see that the free installer is in most
> > cases not useful and therefore want to stop building or working
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 10:13:26AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> > appears solved or possible to solve.
>
> As I understand it there are two problems solved by
Paul Wise writes:
> On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
>> appears solved or possible to solve.
>
> As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
>
> Users who aren't aware of the
On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> appears solved or possible to solve.
As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are directed by
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 12:46:05PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
> content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
> I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
good thing that we have 5
Russ Allbery writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
>> content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
>> I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
>
> So, just to see if I understand, the
On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 19:54 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Syria are excluded by most non-free
On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 10:48 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If there is time left, though, I'm considering proposing the following
> option based on my earlier message, just so that there's something on the
> ballot that explicitly modifies the Social Contract to allow for non-free
> firmware, in
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:01:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> On 2022/09/09 18:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
> > use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
> > Software
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:13:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>
> If we were to include any non-free software/firmware on something that's
> called official Debian installer media that is said to conform to our
> standards
That's exactly the point of changing the wording - by
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:04:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We probably do need to say something about how you need to review the
> licenses for non-free software before using or distributing it. This is
> true for users as well.
>
> How about:
>
> We encourage careful review of the
On 2022/09/09 18:37, Bdale Garbee wrote:
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
I disagree strongly on this.
We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
making to our users, and then stop.
On 2022/09/09 18:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
Looks good to me. It summarizes the gist of the issue very
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Syria are excluded by most non-free licenses.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ʀᴜꜱꜱɪᴀɴᴇꜱ ᴇᴜɴᴛ ᴅᴏᴍᴜꜱ
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀
⠈⠳⣄
On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 09:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> How about:
>
> We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
> use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
>
Would it be reasonable
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
I disagree strongly on this.
We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
making to our users, and then stop. Specifically, we should avoid
including text
Phil Morrell writes:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>> bug fixes and security updates depend entirely on their upstream developers
> This is definitely not *universally true*, think of e.g. GFDL invariants
> or packages that are "merely"
Simon Josefsson writes:
> No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
> content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
> I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
So, just to see if I understand, the part that you're specifically
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> On 2022/09/08 11:27, Phil Morrell wrote:
> > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> >
> > We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
> > not conform to the
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> With your proposal, Debian 'main' would still consists of free content,
>> but to practically install and run any of it, we and our users would
>> have to download non-free content.
> So just like
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> With your proposal, Debian 'main' would still consists of free content,
> but to practically install and run any of it, we and our users would
> have to download non-free content.
So just like now.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Steve McIntyre writes:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>Simon Richter writes:
>>
>>> The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
>>> be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
>>> on actual hardware, and
On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 11:55 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Such packages are not formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes
> and security updates depend entirely on their upstream developers.
...
> An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some
> practical
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
> """
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do not
> conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Steve McIntyre writes:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>>> As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be
>>> one very simple way to express the change we (some of us)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
> > be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
> > on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
> > given
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Simon Richter writes:
>
>> The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
>> be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
>> on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:45:50PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one
> > very
> > simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.
>
> It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a
> pretty
Simon Richter writes:
> The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
> be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
> on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
> given that the actual hardware is non-free.
What has
Hi,
On 9/8/22 08:00, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very
simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.
It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a
pretty strong word here.
It is a
Quoting Simon Josefsson (2022-09-08 11:29:07)
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
>
> Thanks, I prefer this approach over Steve's initial proposal: it solves
> the problem that we would override a foundational document with a GR
>
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
>
> --
>
> This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation
> document)
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
...
>> But as mentioned, I think this is probably too big of a change for this
>> point in the process. (I'll still throw it out there, though, in case
>> there's overwhelming sentiment the other way.)
>
> I disagree; this looks precisely like the change I think we
On 2022/09/08 11:27, Phil Morrell wrote:
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
are not part of the Debian system, but we
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
>> > > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article
Russ Allbery writes:
> Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
Thanks, I prefer this approach over Steve's initial proposal: it solves
the problem that we would override a foundational document with a GR
without the required 3:1 majority.
I'm worried that if we publish
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> > > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
> > > more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
On 9/8/22 00:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
With Steve's change and a few other tweaks to try to make this a bit more
concise:
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free
Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> > Thanks for that proposal Russ!
> >
> > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
> > more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
>
> [...]
>
> > What about this
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> Thanks for that proposal Russ!
> While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
> more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
[...]
> What about this (which adds the non-free-firmware area, replaces "CD
> manufacturers" with "installation
Thanks for that proposal Russ!
While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a more
invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
Le mercredi, 7 septembre 2022, 19.48:36 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> --
>
Steve McIntyre writes:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Ansgar writes:
>>> One suggestion: if we modify the Social Contract then we can as well
>>> include "non-free-firmware" explicitly as well, i.e., replace
>>> We have created "contrib" and "non-free"
Simon Richter writes:
> I agree that from a practical standpoint, this is unlikely to be a
> problem. The new language for the DSC also solves the conflict, but it
> is a regression for user -- before, anything "official" could always be
> redistributed because it had to fulfill the DFSG in
Hi Russ,
On 9/7/22 21:58, Russ Allbery wrote:
Simon Richter writes:
Do users have the right to redistribute the installer?
In this proposal it's left unspecified (in other words, it's not an
inherent position of the Social Contract one way or the other), mostly
because I'm trying to keep
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Ansgar writes:
>
>> Seconded.
>
>> One suggestion: if we modify the Social Contract then we can as well
>> include "non-free-firmware" explicitly as well, i.e., replace
>
>> We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Between one thing and another I've not been tracking the timeline of this
>vote and I'm worried we may be out of time for new ballot options and
>possibly extensions.
>
>(As promised in the previous vote for changing the timing of GRs,
Simon Richter writes:
> Seconded.
> Do users have the right to redistribute the installer?
In this proposal it's left unspecified (in other words, it's not an
inherent position of the Social Contract one way or the other), mostly
because I'm trying to keep the change as simple as possible and
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
