Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:49PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > This is an interpretation of the SC, not the DFSG, and a perfectly valid > > position statement. > > That can be seen as an interpretation of SC #4 (our priorities ar

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Russ Allbery
Kurt Roeckx writes: > If you have an option saying "Allow Lenny to release with firmware > blobs. This does not override the DFSG", I can only see that make sense > if it really means: "firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation", and the > "Lenny" part doesn't make sense. > The same goes for "All

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > I have no problem with considering the following to be position > > statements: > > - Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation > > - Allow releases with known DFSG viol

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:00:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes: > > > But these do not seem like a position statement to me: > > - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs > > - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations > > > > It does not say how to interprete the D

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > I have no problem with considering the following to be position > statements: > - Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation > - Allow releases with known DFSG violations > > They are interpreting the DFSG/SC. Actually, they are interpre

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Russ Allbery
Kurt Roeckx writes: > But these do not seem like a position statement to me: > - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs > - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations > > It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both > seem to temporary override the Foundation Document. Well

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:45:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> 6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain > >>that expecific exception and must say so in the proposal be