On Jun 3, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) wrote: > first of all such suggestion are better discussed on > mailing list see http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel
I'm not really interested in taking part in a debate. I was merely offering a suggestion in the form of a bug report, as suggested by a friend of mine who's involved in Debian's development. I'll let him know the procedure he suggested was inappropriate and suggest him to follow that route. Thanks, and sorry if this caused any trouble. > why did none of your effort got productive AFAICT we have produced a working 100% Free kernel, something that Debian has wished for for several years. Our goals are different from those of kernel upstream or Debian, that appear to feel a need to help hardware vendors keep their customers helpless and dependent. Catering to this kind of issue is not part of the charter of this project. > and turned into upstream patches? upstream wouldn't take patches that remove the non-Free Software, and we already have the kernel we need. It wouldn't make sense for us to work more to advance goals that are actually opposite to ours. > nor do you seem to work on relicensing firmware. That's also not part of the project charter. The goal of the project is to ensure there are well-maintained 100% Free Linux tarballs for anyone who wishes to take freedom seriously. Work on getting firmware relicensed as Free Software is certainly good work to do, but it's not part of this project. > why does it not incorporate the upstream posted request_firmware() > patches from David Woodhouse? or did i oversee them!?! Because it doens't incorporate any patches whatsoever. It tracks upstream. If David's patches are merged, our scripts will be adjusted to remove the non-Free bits from wherever they land, if they remain. If they aren't, why bother?, they don't make any difference for someone who does not want to install non-Free Software on their computers anyway, or for distros that don't want to be part of the distribution of any non-Free Software to their users. These are the use cases linux-libre is designed to serve. > closing as you can only be kidding to consider yourself as appropriate > linux-2.6 upstream source. I'm not kidding, but it's not really upstream. You can regard it as a filter midstream that keeps downstream from polution thrown in the river by upstream. We don't mess with the precious water, we just remove the pollutants. Now, if you prefer to keep on deviating from your own policies and counting on exceptions to ensure main can keep on containing non-Free Software, that's certainly your decision. If you'd rather duplicate this work yourselves, it might make sense to join forces, for I take it you've been trying to fix this problem for a very long time. I offered help because I thought Debian might be interested, considering its policies and all. Of course, you don't have to trust us right away. You can keep an eye for a while and see how quickly our releases come out after an upstream release, and how easily patches for upstream still apply. I've been doing that for freed-ora for a while, it's really a no-brainer. And then, should we fail you, you might as well just go back to your beloved non-free upstream :-) Your call... Best regards, and keep up the good work, -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
