----- "Steve Langasek" <vor...@debian.org> wrote: > The title of ballot option 5 is a complete fabrication on the part of the > Secretary that has nothing to do with its text. If option 5 had actually > said what the title claims it says, then a different supermajority > requirement might be in order, but that's not the case here.
"Complete fabrication" seems a bit melodramatic to me. I will agree that #5 is not as clearly worded as it could be but I don't think its being purposefully deceptive by a long shot. I read it as stating that we assume firmwares to be under a DFSG compliant license that does not violate the GPL when linked into the kernel. The kernel is GPL and the firmwares may be under a variety of licenses that do not violate the GPL (BSD, etc). I also read #5 as implying that firmwares constitute source. None of those cases require a super majority as long as you actually believe that firmware constitutes "source" (which it may, in some rare cases). -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
