On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:38:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:41:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Si, am I silly and alone in thinking that firmware is binary > > > > computer programs? Let us ask google to define: firmware: > > > You are silly in pretending that the DFSG and the widely shared > > > consensus among developers always intended considering them non-free > > > and inappropriate for main. > > > The last of the three pre-sarge non-free GRs confirmed the fact that > > firmware > > is indeed a code binary, and should have source. > > No, it did not. Reread the GR that passed; it says nothing about firmware > or source code.
The discussion leading to it did clearly and numerously mention the firmware issues, together with the GFDL documentation, the fonts, and a couple of others maybe i don't remember. The first GR was the one where we decided to keep non-free, and there already non-free drivers and firmware where mentioned as one of the reason to keep non-free. The second GR was the cosmetic change one, which left us with a (new to some) interpretation including fonts, documentation and firmware as software needing source. The third was a reaction to this one, where we decided to waive this requirement for sarge, in order to get sarge out in a timely fashion. Now, you are, in disrespect of the decision taken back then, and with lot of sugary wrapping to make it pass easier, trying to go back over those decisions. I don't care about word play, or nit picking, it is only the plain fact which counts, and nothing you will say will change what was decided back then and what you are trying to decide now. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
