Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

2008-11-12 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Wed, Nov 12 2008, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:58:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > That's an even greater feat of double-think than is usual around >> > non-free. >> >> If you have proof that the blobs are definitely not the >> preferred form of modification

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

2008-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Tue, Nov 11 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> >> > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2 >> > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a lic

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

2008-11-11 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2 > > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license > > that complies with the DFSG". > >

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

2008-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, This email is an excerpt from Sven Luther, sent via private email. Ths is unedited, but incomplete, I have not included the final paragraph of that email, since I could not defend posting that, and this is what I am comfortable sending. The eliding the final paragraph does not, in

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

2008-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote: > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2 > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license > that complies with the DFSG". Yes. Without that clause, one can say we could ship something like nv

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

2008-11-10 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 16:25 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [...] > ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ] [...] > | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every > | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless > | fir

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

2008-11-10 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Hi, > | Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | | | | I think you've missed to count <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> here. Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

2008-11-10 Thread Debian project secretary
Hi, With a new option added to the list, the discussion period is extended again, by a week, starting 10 Nov 2008 21:28:29. The proposals, tentatively, as reproduced below. |+---+---+---+---+---| |