Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote:
To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot, with the text form
(which is embedded later in this ballot) filled out, to a dedicated
e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
Suggest restructuring to simplify:-
To cast a vote,
Does 5 refer only to firmware that is not currently identified as being
non-free? If that is the case, is 5 a viable choice? If it doesn't resolve the
problem completely and allow us to release then it needs to be accompanied by a
plan for the other problem firm/software.
- Manoj
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 07:45:05PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:18:03AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
Feel free to propose an amendment. I might accept it.
I propose the following ammendment:
[...]
Since there was no further reply on this proposed ammendment,
Hi,
Here is the *DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT* ballot for the GR. Please note
the dates on the ballot; voting is not open yet.
Please send comments to the debian-vote@lists.debian.org list.
manoj
General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations;
FIRST CALL FOR
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:18:03AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I would ask that the proposer withdraw this resolution (which in effect
is a
non-binding position statement, contradicting the text of the DFSG as many
of us understand it) and draft a resolution in its place that
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
In light of the Secretary's claims that the above GR would give him the
power to amend the text of the DFSG even though it says nothing of the sort,
I am sure if he actually did that we could override him. I hope that
would not be necessary however.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 05:11:23PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
,[ Proposal 6: Exclude source requirements from firmware (defined) ]
| Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into
|
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary 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
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 04:20:38PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary 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
|
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:45:57AM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
s/the release team are/the release team is/
Sorry, that was wrong.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
| 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
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
,[ Proposal 6: Exclude source requirements from firmware (defined) ]
| Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into
| hardware components in order to make the component function properly.
|
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081201 01:15]:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary 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
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Since some people have had trouble reading the proposals, I am
including a short impact of the proposal list below the proposal.
Thanks for listing the consequences of the different choices.
In order to make it
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:29:26PM +, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Since some people have had trouble reading the proposals, I am
including a short impact of the proposal list below the proposal.
Thanks for
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:29:26PM +, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Since some people have had trouble reading the proposals, I am
including a short impact of the proposal
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
gregor herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In order to make it easier for me and maybe others I'm trying to compact
them into a single table below (the FD column is from Russ' followup
mail to -vote).
v Consequence / Proposal |
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The release team is free to interpret the SC and decide there is
no violation there (as long as they have a rationale, defensible
position, etc). That would not violate the constitution.
My understanding is that that's exactly what they
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The constitution does not give release teams the powers to
override the foundation documents, so the release team can not ignore
SC violations.
I can make a formal interpretation of the constitution, if you
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:43:05PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:29:26PM +, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Since some people have had trouble
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The constitution does not give release teams the powers to
override the foundation documents, so the release team can not ignore
SC violations.
I can make a formal
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:43:05PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I think the primary question that started this line of proposals
was how to resolve the presence of allegedly sourceless
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:13:38PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The constitution does not give release teams the powers to
override the foundation documents, so the
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:13:38PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The constitution does not give release teams the powers to
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[…] we will […] 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
- Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This says that the *license* must comply with the DFSG. It specifically
does *not* say that the *firmware* complies with the DFSG, allowing us to
ship firmware in main for which source code was unavailable if it otherwise
complied with the DFSG.
- Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears what you don't understand is what the DFSG actually says, since
you're playing word substitution games with the text. Maybe /you've/
promised not to distribute any works without source code in Debian. The
Debian project has done no
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 03:50:07PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:00:02AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Whether loaded by the kernel or present on the chip, we have
promised that works without source code will not be distributed in
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It appears what you don't understand is what the DFSG actually says,
since you're playing word substitution games with the text.
An accusation that could easily be made from many contradictory
positions. The DFSG is not unambiguous in its wording, which
[apologies for the poorly edited previous post, it was sent
accidentally.]
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It appears what you don't understand is what the DFSG actually says,
since you're playing word substitution games with the text.
An accusation that could easily be made from
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fortunately, in the case of programmatic works and DFSG §2, the Debian
project has *already* voted on the interperatation and decided
URL:http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 that the requirement
for source code applies to all programmatic works in
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:00:02AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which
are not yet operable with Debian,
Which wireless card is supported by debian without any
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:00:02AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Whether loaded by the kernel or present on the chip, we have
promised that works without source code will not be distributed in
Debian.
We?
That's what I wrote, yes. I, like every other
* Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-17 19:31]:
(Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
Stop your FUD.
The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations is a
violation of the Social Contract, on the part of the
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-17 19:31]:
It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations
is a violation of the Social Contract, on the part of the project
as a whole, regardless of which individuals are making the
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
* Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-17 19:31]:
(Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
Stop your FUD.
The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations is a
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
aside, I don't think the release team is overriding the social
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ben Finney wrote:
The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
not yet operable with Debian,
Which wireless card is supported by debian without any sourceless
firmware, either loaded by the kernel or present on the chip?
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
not yet operable with Debian,
Which wireless card is supported by debian without any sourceless
firmware, either loaded by the kernel or present on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
not yet operable with Debian,
Which wireless card is supported by debian without
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-18 14:47]:
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
* Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-17 19:31]:
(Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
Stop your FUD.
The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
It is my
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-18 14:47]:
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
* Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-17 19:31]:
(Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
Stop your FUD.
The Release Team isn't
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
not yet operable with Debian,
Which wireless card is supported by debian
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
aside, I don't think the release team is
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Note that firmware is no program AFAICS...
I do not think I agree. I think it is indeed a software program,
and I am not alone:
,[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software ]
| Firmware which is software programmed(sic) resident to
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:12:18PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Note that firmware is no program AFAICS...
I do not think I agree. I think it is indeed a software program,
and I am not alone:
,[
Johannes Wiedersich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which
are not yet operable with Debian,
Which wireless card is supported by debian without any sourceless
firmware, either loaded by the kernel or present on the
Le Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:12:18PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
The DFSG has lasted us oer a decade. In another decade, I think
the distinction of central and periphery and Cell processors is
likely to erode; and our DFSG definition should be forward looking.
Hi Manoj,
I
ke, 2008-11-19 kello 07:58 +0900, Charles Plessy kirjoitti:
Manoj,
I completerly agree.
How about allowing the Project to release Lenny without changing the DFSG?
That is what Manoj proposed on 2008-11-10 in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00060.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Le Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 06:36:12AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
ke, 2008-11-19 kello 07:58 +0900, Charles Plessy kirjoitti:
Manoj,
I completerly agree.
How about allowing the Project to release Lenny without changing the DFSG?
That is what Manoj proposed on 2008-11-10 in
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I believe that one of the arguments used is that by doing so, the RT
would be overriding a foundation document, and developers cannot do so
without $higher_power.
Though I agree that the release team cannot put any
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:02:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What they are not empowered to do is to decide to release with
DFSG violations in main.
Sorry? The release team is empowered to release, and that includes
releasing with some known RC bugs. That’s what they’ve
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 16:26]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:02:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What they are not empowered to do is to decide to release with
DFSG violations in main.
Sorry? The release team is empowered to release, and that includes
(Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
Stop your FUD.
The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations is a
violation of the Social Contract, on the part of the project as a whole,
regardless of which individuals are making
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The proposers and sponsors of option 5 didn't propose this as an amendment
to the current GR. Why should they have to *withdraw* the proposal in order
to get it considered separately at a later time?
They only need to do so to prevent it from being on the
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
aside, I don't think the release team is overriding the social contract,
but chooses a certain interpretation (that I
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
or you have
'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-free crap'
Not both.
Which is why
This one time, at band camp, Adeodato Simó said:
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
or you have
'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:13:25PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Let me observe that the fact that several people here think is not
authoritative.
That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, 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.
I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
I'm hereby proposing the following general
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
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
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
Or the vote that I suspect would be a reasonably common one if the vote
allowed it:
I don't want firmware in main, but I want the Release Team to have the
freedom to allow it for Lenny.
As far as the lenny release is concerned, how is this
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
or you have
'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-free
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 19:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
several people here think the result of Further discussion is:
i Do we require source for firmware in main: Yes
ii Do we allow
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
have _all_ the possible courses of
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 10:04 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: Yes
Rationale: with further discussion nothing changes. Today RMs are
empowered, by delegation, to decide
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:24 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
The social contract says that the debian system and all its
components will be 100% free, free as determined by the dfsg.
All its components include the unstable suite as well. Why are you
focusing on the release
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
threads unreadable anyway.
(If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
as well, but I guess that would be asking too much of you.)
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
So, really, we cannot release programs (firmware) in main
without source code just because a few delegates think we should.
So another delegate (the secretary) should
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
threads unreadable anyway.
(If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
as well, but
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed;
but it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a superhuman
– unless he is leading a double life chasing
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
threads unreadable anyway.
(If you could
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The SC is pretty clear about everything in the Debian
system (which includes image .debs) should be 100% free.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
would leave the decision with the previous decision-making body, in this
case the
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release
team decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further
discussion would leave the decision with the previous
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
withdraw them, if they think the scope is too broad for the problem at
hand. No one else
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
[SC 1] doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist
within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to meet
the DFSG.
In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a mix
of component, software,
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed;
but it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a superhuman
–
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
withdraw them, if they think the scope is too
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:27:26AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Quite right! We need some editorial changes to fix this(!)
Except we already tried that, with the social contract, not long
before madcoder joined. Surely no-one joining in 2005 could be
ignorant of what SC 1 applies to, given all the
* Neil McGovern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 00:27]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
would leave the decision with
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 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]:
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
,[ 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
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
