On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 04:28:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The second time, we said the firmware must comply with the > DFSG. That meant, in practice, that the formware was considered to be > in compliance with the GPL, and thus the preferred form of > modification -- and no one could _prove_ otherwise.
> *THE RELEASE DID NOT VIOLATE THE SOCIAL CONTRACT AS IT STOOD* 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. (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007) This says that the *license* must comply with the DFSG. It specifically does *not* say that the *firmware* complies with the DFSG, allowing us to ship firmware in main for which source code was unavailable if it otherwise complied with the DFSG. So yes, the etch release did violate the Social Contract (including the DFSG by reference) as it stood. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
