Hi all,
It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
do about firmware are currently:
What is the most important for the release of Etch? (202 votes) [0]
Release on time (early december) 57%
Support hardware that requires source
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 17:44 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
>
> (b) The term "software" as used in the Social Contract shall be
> presumed only to cover
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
> do about firmware are currently:
>
> What is the most important for the release of Etch? (202 votes) [0]
> Release on time (early de
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Obviously each of those polls only includes a self-selected minority of
>> the people they try to cover, but the results seem fairly consistent both
>> with each other, and what's been discus
Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Obviously each of those polls only includes a self-selected minority
> of the people they try to cover, but the results seem fairly
> consistent both with each other, and what's been discussed so far on
> this list.
Those polls should neve
Joey Hess a écrit :
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Not also that I found sad that the DPL try to kill this GR with his
latest mail to debian-announce. The problem is known for a long time.
How does posting straw polls of our users and developers to d-d-a manage
to look to you like an attempt to stop t
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
> > social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
> > reconsider whether the change we made in 2004 was the right one. So I'd
> > like
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
> the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
> large extent, just not 100%) or that we are being hypocritical.
Consider comments like
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a ??crit :
> Those polls should never ever drive our choices. I've raised my
> concerns with respect to those polls on -devel, and even asked you as
> the DPL directly[1], mail that you
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given the latest mail from Anthony Towns ("Firmware & Social Contract:
> GR proposal"), it looks like I was correct. He just try to stop this
> GR by proposing his own one.
The DPL has the same right as the other developers to propose GR's
that he feels
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:04:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you consider our ideals to be the original social contract, applied
> to programs not images and firmware, we've been meeting and improving
> upon our ideals every year and every release.
The reason why your proposal is fundamenta
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:14:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a ??crit :
> > Those polls should never ever drive our choices. I've raised my
> > concerns with respect to those poll
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > working out for us. The ballot that chose the current social contract
> > didn't have any alternatives included, and was conducted immediately
> > following the constitutional amendment to allow voting on non-free
> > removal, the non
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:12:56PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Given the latest mail from Anthony Towns ("Firmware & Social Contract:
> > GR proposal"), it looks like I was correct. He just try to stop this
> > GR by proposing his own one.
>
> The D
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>> I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
>> the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
>> large extent, just not 100%) or that we are being hypocriti
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:12:56PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Given the latest mail from Anthony Towns ("Firmware & Social Contract:
> > GR proposal"), it looks like I was correct. He just try to stop this
> > GR by proposing his own one.
>
> The D
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
> of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation.
Removing non-free documentation had been a planned release goal
for etch since August 200
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 09:26:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
> > of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation.
>
> Removing non-fre
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
>> > social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
>> > reconsider whether the change we made in 2004 was the
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion, a project like Debian is never ready, and never perfect.
> Everybody knows that we are not meeting the freedom goals in the SC to
> 100% (as well as other goals)[1]. But I do not see this as a failure,
> rather as a challenge. So why not t
Anthony Towns wrote:
> There was a second ballot, which had six options on it, namely "delay
> the SC change until Sept 1st 2004", "delay the SC change until sarge
> releases", "apologise", "revert to SC 1.0", "create a transition guide
> for the SC and DFSG", "reaffirm the new SC".
>
> The last
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:53:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > working out for us. The ballot that chose the current social contract
> > > didn't have any alternatives included, and was conducted immediately
> > > following the co
Anthony Towns
> Since it appears Debian has to make a choice, which would you=20
> prefer we do for etch? (197 votes) [1]
> Allow sourceless firmware in main 63%
> Delay the release of etch (so that we can support18%
> loading firmware from no
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:48:06PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> The key point seems to be that you want to renew a discussion that,
> according to many's perception, has already taken place sufficiently,
> while you said somewhere that it hadn't...
The current situation appears to be that we end
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:05:48PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > There is an ABI bump scheduled for after beta3.
>
> I cancel this bump for pre-etch.
>
> The main reason for this was the final implemention of support for more
> th
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:36:19PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There's two steps:
> > (1) we're not going to meet the social contract for etch
> > (2) having repeatedly failed to meet the new social contract over
> > an extended period, we should reconside
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:24:13PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> So instead of trying ot change the way some developers and users think,
> we'd rather change our foundation documents?
Changing our foundation documents is a way of changing what developers
and users think. At the moment we claim on
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony Towns
>> Since it appears Debian has to make a choice, which would you=20
>> prefer we do for etch? (197 votes) [1]
>> Allow sourceless firmware in main 63%
>> Delay the release of etch (so that we can support
Anthony Towns wrote:
> While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
> 100% free. [...]
Please not that old myth!
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
provided that you call your lic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here is my (slightly rushed) write-up of a non-free-hw compromise
option. Please second it if you think it should appear on the vote.
This amendment to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> removes
the rationale and "therefore", replaces "authors" in point 2 with
"
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:25:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think we
should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
represent most opinions, and work on p
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anthony Towns
> >> Developer only poll: (83 votes) [2]
> >> Option 1 Release etch on time
> >> Option 3 Support hardware that requires sourceless firmware
> >> Option 2 Do not sh
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
> by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
You might like to consider replying to:
Subject: Re: Presumably-unauthorized Open Logo use
Date: Sat,
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:52:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Indeed, but the fact that "delay until sarge release" won by a large majority,
> shows that our DDs did indeed reaffirm the new SC,
In my opinion, it shows that at the time that was the best option on
the table. One option that wasn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (MJ Ray) wrote:
Hi,
> 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
^
> without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
We'll soon have a 200+ posts sub-thread trying
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:18:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
> > 100% free. [...]
> Please not that old myth!
> Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
> You can use the GPL terms (possibl
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:49:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:52:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Indeed, but the fact that "delay until sarge release" won by a large
> > majority,
> > shows that our DDs did indeed reaffirm the new SC,
>
> In my opinion, it shows
Anthony Towns wrote
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
> > by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
> You might like to consider replying to:
> Subject: Re: Presumably-unauthorized Op
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think we
> should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
> represent most opinions, and work on polishing their wordings instead of
> everyone proposing their pet pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MJ Ray) wrote:
> > 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
>^
> > without free software drivers yet,
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Heh, a FAQ on a website overriding the clear and explicit wording from the
> license itself ("Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
> copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.")? Who
> would've thought...
What the FSF means by verbatim
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:53:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think
> > we
> > should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
> > represent most opinions, and work on p
Hi all.
We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and still
maintaining a timely etch release, so i believe that we should held a vote on
this issue sooner rather than later.
This GR, which was seen by Steve as orthogonal to his GR, is about the etch
release and not abo
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
>> > 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
>>^
>> > without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
>>
>> We'll soon have a 200+ posts sub-t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thus propose that we held a vote ASAP, a real vote, not a poll, about what
> we are going to do about etch :
>
> 1) postpone the non-free firmware issue as proposed in this GR proposal.
> 2) delay etch until we finish discussing this issue and then im
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:53:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think
> > we
> > should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
> > represent most opinions, and work on p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
>without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
>images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
>the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian
Perhaps, before we spend too many more years on trying to solve this
problem, we should agree on what "this problem" is?
One issue here is that we are trying to make a statement about what
direction we are heading. As M.J.Ray states:
The GPL is far closer to 100% free than a source-withheld
With this message I formally second aj's proposed resolution from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I deeply appreciate this, I believe it is the right step to bring back
Debian to its origins and hopefully will help reducing the tensions in
the project caused by the SC change.
Still, I want to ask you to re
MJ Ray wrote:
> 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
> without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
> images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
> the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian Free Sof
> It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning
> what to do about firmware are currently:
>
> What is the most important for the release of Etch? (202 votes)
> [0] Release on time (early december) 57%
> Support hardware that requires sourceless
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
> > without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
> > images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
> > the non-free archive area
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian Free Software
> >Guidelines except guideline 2 (Source Code), or an archive section/area
> >with equivalent requirements.
> This may include proprietary kernel drivers and will exc
MJ Ray wrote:
> Apart from maybe possibly getting the wrong section, I think all of those
> so-called 'serious flaws' are based on misreading the proposal.
It certianly seems to be based on us having different defintions of
terms including "the Debian system" and "drivers".
AIUI, I would word you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This may include proprietary kernel drivers and will exclude important
>> firmwares which are not legally modifiable. Both too much and too little
>> at the same time.
>How would you exclude proprietary kernel drivers while allowing important
>firmwares which are not le
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 17:28 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> AIUI, I would word your proposal something like this:
>
> 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
>without free firmware, the Debian installation media images may
>include selected firmware from non-fre
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not for some reason, for some very obvious reasons. They're not adequate
> as an immediate solution to this problem because separating the firmware
> from the packages that currently contain it is hard and needs development
> and because d-i currently ca
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
> change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
> accepted by everybody in Debian and most people outside Debian with
> mindlessly following their idea of the DFSG.
Anthony Towns writes:
> We'll fail to meet it for firmware and logos in etch, including our own
> logo, and to the best of my knowledge, we're yet to consider addressing
> the license of documents like the Debian Manifesto, or the Debian
> Constitution.
What? Are you declaring now that we will
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
> of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation. It
> wasn't easy and we couldn't make it in time for sarge, but we can make
> it in time for etch. For etch, we
Anthony Towns writes:
> No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
> stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
> didn't quote were in the proposal.
What do you mean that we "can't keep" the commitment to make the
kernel free software?
We j
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and still
> maintaining a timely etch release, so i believe that we should held a vote on
> this issue sooner rather than later.
> This GR, which was seen by Steve as
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not for some reason, for some very obvious reasons. They're not
>> adequate as an immediate solution to this problem because separating
>> the firmware from the packages that currently contain it is hard
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Point 2.1.1 of the Debian Constitution is relevant here. Under the Debian
> Constitution, you have no grounds for expecting the d-i team to work on
> this on your preferred time scale. If you want to get work done that
> other people have not completed
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am entirely happy for the d-i team to never do the work. But that
> does not mean that the kernel team should therefore be allowed to go
> ahead and ship non-free programs in their packages.
That's something different than what you said in your
I voted against the SC change back in 2004, and I haven't changed my
mind. I second the proposal quoted below.
>
> The Debian Project resolves that:
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
> (b) The
66 matches
Mail list logo
