Hi, i second this proposal.
(posted again, this time as signed eMail) On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:18:04AM CEST, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG > require for works that are not "programs" as previously understood in > Debian? Several rounds of general resolutions have now given us answers for > some subclasses of non-program works, but debate still rages regarding one > particularly important class: firmware for peripheral devices. > > Andi Barth and I have discussed how we think the DFSG requirements apply to > firmware and have fairly similar views on the subject, but we also know that > there are other viewpoints within the project, so we're reluctant to make a > unilateral decision about firmware handling for the etch release policy > without finding out how the project as a whole feels about it. In the > meantime, the ongoing discussions within the kernel team and without have > shed, as they say, more heat than light on the subject, so I feel it's time > to answer this question so we can stop being paralyzed by these differences > of opinion, agree to disagree, and move forward with the work that needs to > be done for etch -- whichever set of work we decide that is. > > So below is a proposal that I'm seeking seconds on to establish how DFSG#2 > should be understood to apply to firmware -- i.e., that for Debian's > purposes firmware should be considered data, not programs, and along with > other data we should only encourage, not require, source code for firmware > included in main. This GR is a position statement, not an amendment to the > foundation documents, which means a couple of things. First, it's my > understanding that there is no 3:1 supermajority requirement here; while the > Project Secretary has the procedural authority to require a supermajority > for the vote, I'm likely to consider a GR that fails with > 50% of the vote > to be an endorsement by the project and proceed accordingly for etch. > Second, if developers disagree with this resolution, they are free to ignore > it and follow the demands of their own conscience in their Debian work -- no > one is ever *required* to ship a work in main that they believe is not free > enough for Debian -- they'll just have a statement that the release team, > and a majority of voting developers in Debian, disagree with them attempting > to impose this opinion on others. > > It's my hope that this strikes a reasonable balance between respecting the > views of individual developers and advancing a viable policy for the project > so that we can move forward together on the goal of making each Debian > release a first-class, free operating system. > > So, without further ado: > > The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data > ==================================================== > > The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of > software is very important for software freedom, but at the same time > "source" is often not a well-defined concept for works other than those > traditionally considered "programs". The most commonly cited definition is > that found in version 2 of the GNU GPL, "the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it," but for non-program works, it is not always > clear that requiring this "source" as a precondition of inclusion in main > is in the best interest of our users or advances the cause of Free Software: > > - The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools > in order to be converted into its final "binary" form; e.g., some > device firmware, videos, and graphics. > - The preferred form for modification may be orders of magnitude larger > than the final "binary" form, resulting in prohibitive mirror space > requirements out of proportion to the benefits of making this source > universally available; e.g., some videos. > - The "binary" and "source" forms of a work may be interconvertible with no > data loss, and each may be the preferred form for modification by > different users with different tools at their disposal; e.g., some > fonts. > > While the Debian Free Software Guidelines assert that source code is a > paramount requirement for programs, they do not state that this is the case > for non-program works, which permits us to consider whether one of the above > points justifies a pragmatic concession to the larger context within which > Free Software operates. > > THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore, > > 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our > users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and > > 2. encourages authors of all works to make those works available not > only under licenses that permit modification, but also in forms that make > such modifications practical; and > > 3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works such as > images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance with the DFSG without > requiring source code for these works under DFSG #2; and > > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware > shall also not be considered a program. > > ============================================================================== > > Cheers, > -- > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- Martin Zobel-Helas GPG Key-ID: 0x5d64f870 Debian Developer eMail Privat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian Stable Release Manager eMail Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
