On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:18:04AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 03 octobre 2006 à 22:15 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > 2) The proposal made by Josselin, which basically proposes that we don't
> > require the source code for firmwares 'as long as there are no other
> > technical
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:18:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:15:02 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:36:09PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> >> Yodel!
> >>
> >> With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwar
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:13:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Err, that is a regression from the current version. Option 3
> got dropped from what we have now.
Yeah, i took the first points from Frederik's original proposal, and missed
yours.
That said, i have some trouble
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:11 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> 6. We further note that some of the firmware does not have a proper
> license, and as thus falls implicitly under the generic Linux kernel
> GPL license. ...
I have a bit of trouble parsing that last bit. The
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:21:08AM +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Le samedi 30 septembre 2006 à 20:53 -0700, Daniel Burrows a écrit :
> > --- snip here ---
> > == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader ==
> >
> > The Debian proj
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:08:30AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Jurij, i still think your draft is lightyears more clear and to the point
> > than
> > most GRs out there.
> One comment. As BLOB stands for Binary Large OBject, binary blob
> is somewhat "strange".
This is
Manoj -
>Has anyone done a survey to see how many "do not modify" blobs
>we are talking about here?
Not counting files already removed in 2.6.17,
drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h use-only (2)
drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h use-only (2)
drivers/net/tg3.cr
Le samedi 30 septembre 2006 à 20:53 -0700, Daniel Burrows a écrit :
> --- snip here ---
> == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader ==
>
> The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian
> - Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor su
Le mardi 03 octobre 2006 à 22:15 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> 2) The proposal made by Josselin, which basically proposes that we don't
> require the source code for firmwares 'as long as there are no other
> technical means to install and run the Debian system on these devices',
> which i
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > As per <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on -project, the
> > minimum discussion period is varied to one week, so you can call for a
> > vote at any time. As per that message, you and Lo
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:02:19PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Maybe that's more in your ear that in people's (my, Marc's) mouth?
Nicely said. I didn't mean to attack Manoj.
Greetings
Marc
--
-
Marc Haber | "I
Hi,
Err, that is a regression from the current version. Option 3
got dropped from what we have now.
,
| 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
|
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:15:02 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:36:09PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>> Yodel!
>>
>> With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwares:
>>
>> I'm not going to vote, sorry. I don't have the time to wade
>> thr
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
> For the "editorial changes" GR, I didn't have the time to follow the
> entire flamewar and voted in belief that the changes were indeed
> editorial because I believed in the text in the CfV.
As much as I hate to be caustic,[1] if DDs don't have time to exer
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 21:43:08 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Let's propose the following ammendment to your ammendment, or
>> rather propose a new point 4.
How about this wording:
,
| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
| communit
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:36:09PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Yodel!
>
> With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwares:
>
> I'm not going to vote, sorry. I don't have the time to wade through tons of
> mailing list archives, of which 1/3 is repetitions of previously made
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, if you think calling him lazy is unfair, but him implying
> I deceived him is fair, I amnot sure I can continue this
> conversation,
I do not think he implied that *you* (the secretary) deceived him. He
wrote that he "believed in the
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:58:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Let's propose the following ammendment to your ammendment, or rather propose a
> new point 4.
>
> 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorti
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:57:07 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting
>> > every
-> | b
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:10:55 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was included
>> in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you did
>> not even bother to read the mail y
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Hi,
Let's propose the following ammendment to your ammendment, or rather propose a
new point 4.
4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit out;
for this reason, we will treat removal of problemati
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:28:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Hi, to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
> > However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact
> > be c
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:37:46PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> >> + | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
> >> + | firmware leads to a violation of the license,
> >
> >
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:03:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > + | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
> > + | firmware leads to a violation of the license,
>
> Uh, no we won't.
>
> There are
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was
> included in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you
> did not even bother to read the mail you used to vote with -- sounds
> like the person doing the misleading
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
> -> | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
> + | bit out; for
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:45:57 +0200, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:15:10PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> The "Editorial amendments to SC" GR was not a null operation; it
>> quite clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to
>> all works distribu
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:50 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
> However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact
> be clearer, and has also suggested to take
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/p
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>> + | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
>> + | firmware leads to a violation of the license,
>
> Uh, no we won't.
>
> There are claims that the GPL, when applied to "source
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> + | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch.
>> + | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
>> + | firmware leads to a violation of the license, if the current
>
> What do you mean by "the way we
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> + | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
> + | firmware leads to a violation of the license,
Uh, no we won't.
There are claims that the GPL, when applied to "sourceless" firmware,
doesn't provide p
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
> However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact be
> clearer, and has also suggested to take
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/people/jur
Hi,
to me, and it seems other, too, Manoj's amendment seemed clear.
However, Sven Luther has pointed out some points that could in fact be
clearer, and has also suggested to take
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/people/jurij/firmware-position-statement.txt?op=file&sc=1
into account. I'll try to
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The "Editorial amendments to SC" GR was not a null operation; it quite
> clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all
> works distributed in main.
Adjective holy misplacement, Batman! Rather, it changed the social
contract to make the DFSG
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> As I understand what's going on, instead of having a single vote with
> all the firmware-related options laid out on the ballot, we are
> apparently going to have a series of votes about related topics (GR
> 2006/004 being the first) with only the
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:06:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:48:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It would serve as summary, if nothing else. But we also had a discussion
> > with
> > the DPL, who suggested a new GR which could be signed by the kernel team,
> > the
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:34:06PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:09:14AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> I think you're wrong here, unless you're using an unusual definition
> >> of "distri
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As per <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on -project, the
> minimum discussion period is varied to one week, so you can call for a
> vote at any time. As per that message, you and Loic can also vary the
> voting period if you think that's a useful thing t
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:15:10PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The "Editorial amendments to SC" GR was not a null operation; it quite
> clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all
> works distributed in main. This was rather laboriously discussed on
> -vote at the time, with
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:48:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> It would serve as summary, if nothing else. But we also had a discussion with
> the DPL, who suggested a new GR which could be signed by the kernel team, the
> d-i team and the RMs (signed = seconded here).
While we were discussing tha
Sven Luther wrote:
> Jurij, i still think your draft is lightyears more clear and to the point than
> most GRs out there.
One comment. As BLOB stands for Binary Large OBject, binary blob
is somewhat "strange".
Regards,
Joey
--
Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessaril
41 matches
Mail list logo
