On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 09:46:32PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:01:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > He has full control of it, in the sense that it is often binary only, and
> > that
> > he produces it, and not some third party (like the operating system vendor).
>
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:01:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> He has full control of it, in the sense that it is often binary only, and that
> he produces it, and not some third party (like the operating system vendor).
> Also, i believe that modifying the firmware, like you propose, usually voids
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:13:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Speaking as someone with experience of the software rather than hardware
> > side of this I'd call FPGA images hardware. From the point of view of
> > working with it it l
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
> > opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
> > communications e
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:55:43PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > 1. The archive did not support a non-free section for udebs until today.
>
> Done.
>
> > 2. libd-i and anna do not support multiple udeb sources, but can only
> >pull from one at a time; noone has yet fixed this
Joey Hess wrote:
> 1. The archive did not support a non-free section for udebs until today.
Done.
> 2. libd-i and anna do not support multiple udeb sources, but can only
>pull from one at a time; noone has yet fixed this
mrvn pointed out that true multiple source support isn't needed for thi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So I think the real question is "How does us refusing to ship non-free
>> firmware help free software?".
>WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING DOING THAT. I hate to shout, but *have* you heard of
>non-free? It was mentioned in the post you're replying to!
I did. And it's not part of
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> > I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
>> > isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
>> > f
MJ Ray wrote:
> I think the idea that refusing to ship non-free firmware in main will
> strengthen demand for free firmware is worthy of consideration. Debian
> helps users to take control of their operating system. Increasing the
> demand for free firmware might also help users to take control
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
>> you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
>> This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
>> For
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Poole wrote:
I'm not going to argue with your previous points, which are all
basically accurate.
> Related to (a), current programmable hardware cannot run *any* CPU at
> speeds that most users would accept for desktop use. However, solving
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > > To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
> > > opposite is true. I des
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
> > opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
> > communications
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> relevant part is this:
>>
>> >>4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device
>> >> firmware shall also not be considered a program.
>>
>> I as non native speaker understand that as this: [...]
>
> Yeah, but then way not say it clearly,
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it's the latter, I maintain that this is precisely the subject matter of
> the proposed GR; we obviously *don't* have agreement in Debian over what
> should or should not be considered a "program", so I think that's begging
> the question.
However,
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 05:49:47PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Let's say i have a wireless chip, which includes a pci interface which can
> > be
> > either host or device, a wireless interface to some antenas, an arm core,
> > some
> > ram and f
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's say i have a wireless chip, which includes a pci interface which can be
> either host or device, a wireless interface to some antenas, an arm core, some
> ram and flash.
>
> [explanations snipped]
>
> This is not a 100% real example, since i am not
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 04:50:45PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Please note in this subthread, that Steve ist talking about ``device
> >> firmware'', whereas this subthread is talking about ``firmware'' in
> >> general.
> >
> > And note how the l
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please note in this subthread, that Steve ist talking about ``device
>> firmware'', whereas this subthread is talking about ``firmware'' in general.
>
> And note how the line blurs when you consider a peripheral firmware which is
> using the same set of c
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:54:13PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> >> shall also not be considered a program.
> >
> >
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
>> shall also not be considered a program.
>
> I am bothered that there is never a definition of "firmware" here.
Please note
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
> opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
> communications equipment. We avoid ROMs as much as possible, because
> they are diffi
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:03:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Within a Debian context people normally seem to use the term "firmware"
> to mean any binary blob that gets programmed into hardware. This could
> include things like register settings or FPGA images as well as programs
> to execute on
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:47:42AM +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:25:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish
> > > information whi
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:28:56AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:47:42AM +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:25:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > The idea is that t
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:42:19AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> > I think we should learn from OpenBSD on this front.
> >> I agree. Indeed, the OpenBSD project not only distributes
> >> sourceless firmwares, but also sourceless firmwares with a
> >> license which forbids modifications and rever
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device
>>firmware shall also not be considered a program.
>
> This would require us to amend the foundation doc
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:02:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Recent history -- in particular, GR 2006-001's winning option --
> suggests that broad DFSG exemptions, when treated as clarifications or
> interpretations of the project, are not necessarily so clear-cut about
> requiring a 3:1 super
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> If you want to amend the DFSG to state
>
> "3. Source Code
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
> code as well as compiled form. However, this requirement does not apply to
> firmware, defined as ."
>
> I would strongly oppose s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program.
I am not sure, it's not very funny to me. But it worked pretty well
until you and a few other people started pretending we have been
confused for all these years and actually meant something else.
>Suppos
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:25:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish
> > information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you.
>
> I see. If I buy a stand
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux
> > +
> > userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in
> > the flash of t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish
> information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you.
I see. If I buy a standard-issue Dell computer, then Windows is
firmware, right? (Dell does provide it,
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux +
> userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in
> the flash of the board.
Wow. I thought that "doesn't run on the main CPU" was entirely
indefensi
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:23:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> > shall also not be considered a program.
>
> I am bothered that there is never a definition of "firmwa
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:26:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Notice that the bios or other firmware used on most machines today is also
> > refered as firmware. The original definition is, i believe, any kind of code
> > provided by the vendo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Notice that the bios or other firmware used on most machines today is also
> refered as firmware. The original definition is, i believe, any kind of code
> provided by the vendor of said device, and on which he has full control, so
> firmware was non-free
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you and I discussed previously on IRC, I don't agree with this amendment.
> The premise of my proposal is that we are *not* granting an exception nor
> redefining any terms, we are merely recognizing a latent definition of
> "programs" that has guide
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> shall also not be considered a program.
I am bothered that there is never a definition of "firmware" here. It
seems to me that if you gave one, it would be something like:
"firm
I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program.
Suppose we had in our possession the source code and an assembler for
it. Surely then it would be obviously a program.
thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] "de Raadt firmware" I have found:
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1098992287663.html
> And http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550:
Thanks. (Neither were in the OpenBSD list archives...)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mj
Kurt Roeckx wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00205.htm
> I'm not sure about those 46 that already use request_firmware()
I see no reason to take them out. I listed them as a measure
of success, at least with recently added drivers.
> It would be interestig to know if any o
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, all the references I have found tell me that firmware
> is computer programs.
>
Interesting, as I note that *none* of those you quoted do so -- although
some do say that it is "software" that is stored in less-volatile
storage than RAM.
Given the sca
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 09:31:58PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Sven Luther [Sat, Aug 26 2006, 06:21:54PM]:
> > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:24:47AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > #include
> >
> > Thanks for saying those things, which i was thinking myself, but could not
> > have ex
#include
* Sven Luther [Sat, Aug 26 2006, 06:21:54PM]:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:24:47AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > #include
>
> Thanks for saying those things, which i was thinking myself, but could not
> have expressed without being seen as a whiner.
You know, it's always the same. Whe
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [Steve Langasek]
> > > That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
> > > being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
> > >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>No. We just keep providing the official free images. And someone else will
>provide the non-free variants.
Yes: Ubuntu.
> This scenario would reflect exactly the
>situation that already exists WRT Debian as in (free) "Debian" and Debian as in
>"Debian + non-free + even-m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This discussion has indeed been going on for a while. The most important
>arguments seem to be that one side is saying "It must be Free!" while
>the other claims "There is nothing useful in making it Free".
Wrong. The real other argument is "there is nothing useful in mak
#include
* Peter Samuelson [Sat, Aug 26 2006, 05:35:00AM]:
>
> [Eduard Bloch]
> > > . Ship a separate non-free CD.
> >
> > >* Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements.
> >
> > How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think there is a plenty of space on the
> > non-free CD for
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:01:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:12:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > I would like to see some language to the effect that we make the
> > exception for firmware only in the cases of data that use the moral
> > equivalent of the kernel l
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do
> the DFSG require for works that are not "programs" as previously
> understood in Debian? Several rounds of general resolutions have now
> given us answers for som
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:24:47AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
Thanks for saying those things, which i was thinking myself, but could not
have expressed without being seen as a whiner.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
Hrm, maybe this thread should move elsewhere.
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:35:00AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Eduard Bloch]
> > > . Ship a separate non-free CD.
> >
> > >* Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements.
> >
> > How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think t
[Eduard Bloch]
> > . Ship a separate non-free CD.
>
> > * Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements.
>
> How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think there is a plenty of space on the
> non-free CD for those, together with udebs and boot images.
Because it implies that we p
#include
* Joey Hess [Wed, Aug 23 2006, 02:15:59PM]:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If it makes sense, what are the major difficulties/inconveniences/whatever
> > that were found in having this happen for etch, that will need to be
> > addressed to achieve an etch+1 release that's both useful and conv
#include
* Frans Pop [Wed, Aug 23 2006, 02:28:30AM]:
> Seconded.
Also seconded.
> > The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
> >
> >
> > The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
> >
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:04:51PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > > Point 3 then seems to go t
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > > Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don't need
> > > > sources for of fe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Searching OpenBSD mailing list archives for mails matching both keywords
>firmware and source found nothing. Are you sure it's in there?
Well, probably there is a reason if you have not found anything by
looking for "source"... With a two minutes google search of
"de Raa
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted from wonderland.linux.it:
> No, it's because they really do not believe this to be a problem, like
> everybody else but a few people polluting debian-legal.
I note that several of those supporting the current source code
requirement for main don't post much
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>My understanding is that upstream has not been entirely receptive
>to patches that remove non-free firmware from it. Maybe that's
>because they don't have an established firmware-nonfree project
>(like Debian does) into which to move that firmware?
No, it's because they
[Matthew Garrett]
> The biggest area which is likely to bite us is with network cards,
> though we'll probably lose some degree of SCSI support as well.
Fortunately, at least with SCSI, users have a choice. They can buy
Adaptec or LSI 53c* and they get _truly free_ firmware (in the case of
Adap
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Our voting mechanism is *clone*proof, preventing multiple identical ballot
> options from influencing the outcome; but it's not proofed against influence
> by toothless variants that will inevitably appeal to a broader constituency
> because they sa
Heya,
I second the proposal quoted below.
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
> softwar
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:56:49PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00125.html
> > I would indeed vote for a solution including a non-free hardware,
> > or even better an additional CD, which contained a non-free
> > version of
Hi -
Sorry I'm late for the party. I'm on travel, with less than
ideal 'net connections. Reading 147 messages on d-v over
a hotel's erratic wireless link was not fun.
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00117.html
> None of the trolls demanding the removal
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:25:48 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
[...]
>> > Maybe I don't quite understand your concern correctly, but isn't this
>> > one o
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
>The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
>software is very important for s
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:35:34 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:21:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR
>> > that consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because
>> > assuming
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:08:33 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> OTOH, the source may require a non-free tool to render it into a
> binary firmware form. If you don't have that tool, and maybe even
> no hope of getting access to it, is it any longer evident that the
> source is mor
Hi Steve and others,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> shall also not be considered a program.
I am in the NM queue, so my opinion does not matter, but still... I
cannot stay silent reading t
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:21:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR
> > that consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because
> > assuming rational voters I would expect the voters who approve of
> > that option to be a st
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don't need
> > > sources for of few types of works. My main problem with this is that
> > > still a little
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR that
> > > consist
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:28:02AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
> non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
This is a bad example, as the madwifi HAL case is *not* a firmware:
the code is executed on the host CPU.
Cheers,
--
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR that
> > consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because assuming
> > rational
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:48:20AM +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The second GR was the cosmetic change one, which left us with a
> (new to some) interpretation including fonts, documentation and firmware as
> software needing source.
Note that this consmetic change applied to the
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR that
> consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because assuming
> rational voters I would expect the voters who approve of that option
>
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:08:18AM +0200, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Steve Langasek:
>
> >> I'd actually see some restriction with regard to interoperability
> >> (i.e. some reasonably documented interface between the firmware and
> >> the driver code), but getting this right i
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:24:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:16:42 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > A position statement tells the wider community, not just Debian's
> > own developers, Debian's views on a subject. "Don't worry about
> > source co
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] This GR is a position statement, not an amendment to the
> foundation documents, which means a couple of things. [...]
As I understand it, this proposal seeks to exempt parts of debian
from part of the DFSG. Why is that not an amendment to the foundation
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don't need
> > sources for of few types of works. My main problem with this is that
> > still a little vague about which types of works don't require source.
>
> What pr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If there is a vote, I will vote AGAINST granting a special
>exception to firmware, or considering firmware as data. Manoj's
>arguments are compelling IMHO. In addition, the proposed GR makes no
>mention of blobs, which are binary-only pieces of software that execute
>*i
Ludovic Brenta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is a vote, I will vote AGAINST granting a special
> exception to firmware, or considering firmware as data. Manoj's
> arguments are compelling IMHO. In addition, the proposed GR makes no
> mention of blobs, which are binary-only pieces of softw
If there is a vote, I will vote AGAINST granting a special
exception to firmware, or considering firmware as data. Manoj's
arguments are compelling IMHO. In addition, the proposed GR makes no
mention of blobs, which are binary-only pieces of software that execute
*in kernel space*, *on the centra
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:08:08 -0600, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj wrote:
>> Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
>> definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
>> define: computer program gives: , | * A computer program is a
>> set of
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:16:42 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> A position statement tells the wider community, not just Debian's
> own developers, Debian's views on a subject. "Don't worry about
> source code for firmware, no one cares about it" is not a message I
> want to send.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:30:33AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>> You wrote:
>> > 3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require
>> >works such as images, video, and fonts to be licensed
>
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:23:20 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As you and I discussed previously on IRC, I don't agree with this
> amendment. The premise of my proposal is that we are *not* granting
> an exception nor redefining any terms, we are merely recognizing a
> latent def
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I would prefer if the term "firmware" would be defined or at least
>> explained in the GR. Something like:
>
>> firmware (data which is sent to attached devices for processing and
>> which is not, directly or indirectly, executed on the host CPU)
>
>I don't object
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:30:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> he doesn't use the leader@ address even on issues related to his DPL role, as
> i well know, so this is no guarantee.
AFAICT, he always signs those mails with DPL in the signature. Plus, at
least in this thread, he did use [EMAIL PROT
* Steve Langasek:
>> I'd actually see some restriction with regard to interoperability
>> (i.e. some reasonably documented interface between the firmware and
>> the driver code), but getting this right is likely not worth the
>> effort.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure what that would look like at all; as so
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:30:31PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
> >
> > 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our
> > users according to our Social Contract and th
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:48:52AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >
> > Well, the point is the following. From the driver point of view, it speaks
> > to
> > the device, with a given protocol, over a given hardware interface (pci,
> > random set of GPIO pins, etc).
> >
>
> No. It ta
Hi,
>
> Well, the point is the following. From the driver point of view, it speaks to
> the device, with a given protocol, over a given hardware interface (pci,
> random set of GPIO pins, etc).
>
No. It talks to the firmware. Or do you really believe anything else
then the firmware can give a s
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:57:20AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > I'd actually see some restriction with regard to interoperability
> > > (i.e. some reasonably documented interface between the firmware and
> > > the driver code), but getting this right is likely not worth the
> > >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:25:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:30:33AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
> > You wrote:
>
> > > 3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works
> > > such as
> > > images, video, and fonts to be licensed in complianc
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:38:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:41:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > >Si, am I silly and alone in thinking that firmware is binary
> > > > computer programs? Let us ask google to define: firmware:
> > > You are silly in pretend
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Sven Luther]
> > To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
> > tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
>
> I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
> observations and o
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We never included non-free applications in main because we felt that
> there was no need to. And, indeed, even in 1993 it was possible to use a
> computer without any non-free applications.
> That doesn't hold with the firmware
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
