On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 19:54 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Syria are excluded by most non-free licen
Hi all,
While firmware is the most important category of software not available
in Debian main needed by Debian users at install time, there are others.
Some that I can think of are drivers and accessibility aids, for eg:
The broadcom-sta-dkms Broadcom WiFi driver is only in non-free.
The mbrol
On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 10:48 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If there is time left, though, I'm considering proposing the following
> option based on my earlier message, just so that there's something on the
> ballot that explicitly modifies the Social Contract to allow for non-free
> firmware, in cas
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:01:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> On 2022/09/09 18:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
> > use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
> > Software Guidelin
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:13:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>
> If we were to include any non-free software/firmware on something that's
> called official Debian installer media that is said to conform to our
> standards
That's exactly the point of changing the wording - by inc
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:04:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We probably do need to say something about how you need to review the
> licenses for non-free software before using or distributing it. This is
> true for users as well.
>
> How about:
>
> We encourage careful review of the lice
On 2022/09/09 18:37, Bdale Garbee wrote:
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
I disagree strongly on this.
We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
making to our users, and then stop. Specif
On 2022/09/09 18:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
Looks good to me. It summarizes the gist of the issue very conci
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Syria are excluded by most non-free licenses.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ʀᴜꜱꜱɪᴀɴᴇꜱ ᴇᴜɴᴛ ᴅᴏᴍᴜꜱ
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀
⠈⠳⣄
On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 09:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> How about:
>
> We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
> use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
>
Would it be reasonable inste
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
I disagree strongly on this.
We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
making to our users, and then stop. Specifically, we should avoid
including text that
Phil Morrell writes:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>> bug fixes and security updates depend entirely on their upstream developers
> This is definitely not *universally true*, think of e.g. GFDL invariants
> or packages that are "merely" non-comm
Simon Josefsson writes:
> No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
> content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
> I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
So, just to see if I understand, the part that you're specifically
objec
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> On 2022/09/08 11:27, Phil Morrell wrote:
> > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> >
> > We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
> > not conform to the Debia
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> With your proposal, Debian 'main' would still consists of free content,
>> but to practically install and run any of it, we and our users would
>> have to download non-free content.
> So just like now
Bart Martens writes:
> Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
>
> =
>
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive
> available
> for d
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> With your proposal, Debian 'main' would still consists of free content,
> but to practically install and run any of it, we and our users would
> have to download non-free content.
So just like now.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
De
Steve McIntyre writes:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>Simon Richter writes:
>>
>>> The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
>>> be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
>>> on actual hardware, and
18 matches
Mail list logo
