On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not >> what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal >> conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them resemble each other.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:26:05PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > I agree with Michael Poole insofar as this message. Here's an attempt at > an unbiased summary: > There are four classes of firmware: [...] > Current policy is that firmware types 1, 3, and 4 have to go. We cannot > change our policy such that 1 can stay; that is illegal. If 3) and 4) > are not copyright infringement (I and others believe they are, Michael > and others believe they are not, that is what this debate is about), we > *could* potentially suspend the SC/DFSG and release with them. I think > this is also a bad idea, but it's feasible. If 3) and 4) are copyright > infringement, then we must remove them as well. Which GR's are involved, which is which, and what are their statuses? -- wli
