Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > […] we will […] 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.
If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that availability of the source form of a work is not a necessary criterion to describe a work as “distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG”. Is that a fair phrasing of the assertion? -- \ “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” | `\ —David Hume | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
