On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > ,---- > | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software > | community (Social Contract #4); > | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel > | firmware issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out; > | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in > | the progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by > | Debian relative to the Sarge release in Etch > | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every > | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless > | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as > | long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and > | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, > | as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is > | distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG. > `----
Manoj, i want a clarification of what this actually means for : 1) firmware like the tg3 one, which is licenced under a 'permision to distribute under an hexa dump or equivalent format' but no further modification rights. This is clearly DFSG non-free, so tg3 has to go. 2) firmware under the GPL, but with missing source. The GPL is free, but the absence of source code for the firmware blobs makes it a violation of the GPL, and thus undistributable. 3) firmware under a BSDish licence, but without source. The BSD is a free licence, but i question the freeness of binaries distributed under the BSD without source code. fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to know why you seconded this. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
