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 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 Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:58:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I would prefer it if you would strike references to "non-free" in the above
> > and replace them with the term "sourceless", to keep the scope the same as
> Well, the DFSG clearly state that programs need to have sources to be free.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:15:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:58:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > I would prefer it if you would strike references to "non-free" in the
> > > above
> > > and replace them with the term "sourceless", to keep the scope the same as
>
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 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
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 09:25:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:15:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:58:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > I would prefer it if you would strike references to "non-free" in the
> > > > above
> > > > and re
* 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 Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:25:33AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:25:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:15:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Whether you consider sourceless firmware to be non-free or not, changing
> > > "sourceless" to "no
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> He didn't use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. It was clear to me that
> he was speaking as a developer, not as the DPL.
But he has repeatedly suggested when speaking as a developer that
non-DDs are kind of a second-class speaker on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This is FUD. Nothing in this proposal says that we will ignore licenses
>> when distributing firmware or any other works.
>Maybe, but you take the first step toward this, so when will you stop ? Also,
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
HTH.
>
[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
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:48:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> This is FUD. Nothing in this proposal says that we will ignore licenses
> >> when distributing firmware or any other works.
> >Maybe, but you take the first step toward this, so when will you stop ? Al
Le jeu 24 août 2006 14:08, Sven Luther a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:48:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > The only way you can argue this is by not understanding the
> > proposed GR: a boot sector is not firmware since it's loaded from a
> > disk to run on the same CPU which will later r
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:22:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le jeu 24 août 2006 14:08, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:48:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > The only way you can argue this is by not understanding the
> > > proposed GR: a boot sector is not firmware si
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 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.
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
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
[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
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
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, 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
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 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
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 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 08:48:20AM +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 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 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 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 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 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
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, 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
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 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 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
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, 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
I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process.
As I will (starting late sunday PDT) be away for a week and a few days
at Burning Man,[i] I will be unable to appropriately respond to
corrections and suggested amendments during that time. However, I will
do so immediately at my
43 matches
Mail list logo
