Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’? - Debian

This is a discussion on Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’? - Debian ; On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:12:25PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Howdy all, > > Have I missed some announcement that DFSG violations don't matter for > the release of ‘lenny’? > > I ask because a whole lot ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107

Thread: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

  1. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:12:25PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
    > Howdy all,
    >
    > Have I missed some announcement that DFSG violations don't matter for
    > the release of ‘lenny’?
    >
    > I ask because a whole lot of bug reports of DFSG violations have been
    > tagged ‘lenny-ignore’ without explanation:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > and probably others I've missed.
    >
    > Should these tags be removed? I would think at least a meaningful
    > justification in the bug report is required if DFSG violations are to
    > be explicitly ignored, but perhaps I'm wrong.
    >


    As it seems there are a few persons interested by getting those bugs
    fixed asap, could we create a team of persons willing to deal with users
    who will get affected by the removal of non-free code? I really don't
    want to deal with user complaints. The best would be to use a
    pseudo-package in the BTS for that, so that we can reassign bugs easily.

    Then I will remove the non-free code with my packages.

    --
    .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
    : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
    `. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
    `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:30:23PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
    > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:16:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
    > >
    > > You cannot ask, so late in the release process,

    >
    > Some of these bugs have been known for *years*. In one of them, I even got
    > a reply saying something along the lines of "I was expecting this one".
    >


    Debian is violating the DFSG by using a non-DFSG license for its website
    (see bug#238245). As the bug is opened for *years*, I suggest we proceed
    with the removal of the website.

    Any volunteer to work on that?

    --
    .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
    : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
    `. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
    `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

    > Debian is violating the DFSG by using a non-DFSG license for its website
    > (see bug#238245). As the bug is opened for *years*, I suggest we proceed
    > with the removal of the website.


    Same for the wiki (see bug #385797). IIRC from debconf9, the plan is
    to relicense where possible and delete where not. CC0 was the proposed
    new license.

    --
    bye,
    pabs

    http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Le mardi 21 octobre 2008 * 00:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
    > The modified linux-2.6 and firmware-nonfree source packages, and the
    > linux-source-2.6.26 and firmware-* binary packages, can be found in:
    > http://people.debian.org/~benh/firmware-removal/


    Thanks for the summary.

    > Please test them if you can. I have only been able to test the radeon
    > changes myself.


    You know where to go now: users. Post to d-d-a, post to planet, search
    for people with this hardware. Insist on it being critical for the
    continued support of this hardware. If people show up, you’ve got the
    tests the kernel team was requesting. If they don’t, that could mean
    dropping support for this hardware is feasible.

    --
    .''`.
    : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
    `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
    `- our own. Resistance is futile.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI/aACrSla4ddfhTMRAuhPAKCcJsyNkgCluX0zH0rpeYA4fxks/wCdHnr7
    dhCoa0k//Bd0BoByWOM2upE=
    =4hlo
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  5. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 01:32:51PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > Seems like there are patches stripping the kernel of these
    > non-free blobs. So, how much would out hardware support be degraded?
    > How many people are affected by these non-free drivers?


    The drm modules: Anything which includes an ATI or Matrox card and runs
    X. The network modules: Not that much, it is mostly old hardware. We
    already removed the bnx2x driver for the new Broadcom 10GE interfaces,
    which in fact is a really new one.

    Bastian

    --
    You canna change the laws of physics, Captain; I've got to have thirty minutes!


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 08:29 +0200 schrieb Marc Haber:
    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
    > wrote:
    > >On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
    > >> No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
    > >> doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
    > >> everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
    > >> could also step up to the plate and help fix this issue.

    > >
    > >Of course. These are RC bugs. I would be happy to upload an NMU that
    > >fixed the RC issue by removing support for the relevant hardware, and
    > >dropping blobs from the source. I don't think it's a very challenging
    > >task, but I'm happy to do so. Will that be ok?

    >
    > You're not seriously thinking that a release without E100 support does
    > make any sense and is any good for Debian, right?


    How long do you want to ignore the issue, then? It's software without
    source, every other package gets a REJECTED in NEW for such stuff.

    Thomas


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  7. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Hi

    Dne Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:54 +0100
    Ben Hutchings napsal(a):

    > The modified linux-2.6 and firmware-nonfree source packages, and the
    > linux-source-2.6.26 and firmware-* binary packages, can be found in:
    > http://people.debian.org/~benh/firmware-removal/
    >
    > Please test them if you can. I have only been able to test the radeon
    > changes myself.


    Please fix permissions:

    You don't have permission to
    access /~benh/firmware-removal/firmware-nonfree_0.13.2.dsc on this
    server.

    --
    Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj9olUACgkQ3DVS6DbnVgRenACgvtOtqc83VI qiH/KtK6lJ6ke6
    LDMAnjvCMXu9WF0opUJUPFTviFlxV4dr
    =x+25
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  8. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:08:57AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
    > Debian is violating the DFSG by using a non-DFSG license for its website
    > (see bug#238245). As the bug is opened for *years*, I suggest we proceed
    > with the removal of the website.
    >
    > Any volunteer to work on that?


    LOL, thanks for this

    --
    Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
    zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
    Dietro un grande uomo c' sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right
    uno zaino -- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFI/bca1cqbBPLEI7wRAh4cAKCmzDfxFkAKBea00m+AMqttQeR6+gC fUvw5
    jkN0hy5+g4DrpmFj15f/9zU=
    =Sb57
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  9. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:04:21AM +0000, Thomas Weber wrote:
    > Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 08:29 +0200 schrieb Marc Haber:
    > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
    > > wrote:
    > > >On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
    > > >> No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
    > > >> doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
    > > >> everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
    > > >> could also step up to the plate and help fix this issue.
    > > >
    > > >Of course. These are RC bugs. I would be happy to upload an NMU that
    > > >fixed the RC issue by removing support for the relevant hardware, and
    > > >dropping blobs from the source. I don't think it's a very challenging
    > > >task, but I'm happy to do so. Will that be ok?

    > >
    > > You're not seriously thinking that a release without E100 support does
    > > make any sense and is any good for Debian, right?

    >
    > How long do you want to ignore the issue, then? It's software without
    > source, every other package gets a REJECTED in NEW for such stuff.


    If we weren't doing compromises, then:

    * we would have no glibc (sunrpc code has licensing issues);
    * until recently we would have no 3d (mesa had licensing issues);
    * we would have no portmap/nfs/... (the same sunrpc issue as the
    glibc);
    * we would have no kernel (it's crippled with tiny offending blobs);
    * we would have no DRI/DRM for many video cards;
    * …

    IOW we would barely be able to use some devices, only in the linux
    console, and 1 time over 3 without any kind of network connectivity.

    I don't say it's nothing we should _care_ about, but at some point:
    * you don't have the source of your BIOS;
    * you don't have the VHDL source of your CPU and all the chipsets of
    your computer;
    * I'm sure your laptop/computer has dozens of patented hardware bits,
    so you're supporting patents while buying it, you should do a
    pilgrimage to cleanse yourself from all that filth.

    To add insult to the injury, the key to my home is patented, and I have
    to go to special locksmith if I want to have a new one and so on, and
    behind my door, there is a lot of Open Source. I should get rid of it,
    it could be tainted, that would be bad wouldn't it ?


    Firmwares are here because it's cheaper nowadays to have a chip that is
    versatile and configured to a specific task. Older hardware had less
    firmwares because the chips were made specifically for the board it was
    in, and you had no problems with not having the source "code" of the
    chip. So really, I see there is a double standard here, and a lot of
    hypocrisy.


    But sure, I still have 2 machines that use e100 at home (I think, maybe
    only one), I will be delighted not to be able to install Debian on it,
    because ****wits have decided that less than 512 octets of firmware
    (inside millions of slocs in the kernel) were not free enough.
    --
    ·O· Pierre Habouzit
    ··O madcoder@debian.org
    OOO http://www.madism.org

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEABECAAYFAkj9tYUACgkQvGr7W6Hudhw73ACeK4G6dOw178 QJiuzSFDrRiKC4
    pXUAnRXu4IuwapAmOlyi5gxbE6VAzqkB
    =3+Ea
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  10. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 12:57 +0200 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
    > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:04:21AM +0000, Thomas Weber wrote:
    > > Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 08:29 +0200 schrieb Marc Haber:
    > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
    > > > wrote:
    > > > >On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
    > > > >> No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
    > > > >> doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
    > > > >> everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
    > > > >> could also step up to the plate and help fix this issue.
    > > > >
    > > > >Of course. These are RC bugs. I would be happy to upload an NMU that
    > > > >fixed the RC issue by removing support for the relevant hardware, and
    > > > >dropping blobs from the source. I don't think it's a very challenging
    > > > >task, but I'm happy to do so. Will that be ok?
    > > >
    > > > You're not seriously thinking that a release without E100 support does
    > > > make any sense and is any good for Debian, right?

    > >
    > > How long do you want to ignore the issue, then? It's software without
    > > source, every other package gets a REJECTED in NEW for such stuff.

    >
    > If we weren't doing compromises, then:


    You are missing my point. We[1] got a reject for a documentation PDF
    without source. So, we contacted upstream who checked the copyright with
    the company in order to release the source for the documentation. And
    yes, it's work, painful, whatever and I would have preferred not having
    to do it.

    The kind of "compromise" above makes it close to impossible to argue in
    such cases:

    Upstream: "You are ignoring the issue in case X, why do you bother me
    about Y? It's not even code, if you want the text, just extract it."

    What do you expect me to say in such cases: "You are not the kernel."?

    [1] Packages are group-maintained.

    > I don't say it's nothing we should _care_ about, but at some point:
    > * you don't have the source of your BIOS;
    > * you don't have the VHDL source of your CPU and all the chipsets of
    > your computer;
    > * I'm sure your laptop/computer has dozens of patented hardware bits,
    > so you're supporting patents while buying it, you should do a
    > pilgrimage to cleanse yourself from all that filth.


    Yes, and what of the above is in Debian's archive? Frankly, if binary
    firmware is okay, just say so in the DFSG. No problem with me. But then
    please be consistent and stop forbidding uploads for documents without
    source, too. Because I'm unable to explain the difference between
    "firmware without source" and "binary documentation without source". Can
    you explain it?

    > Firmwares are here because it's cheaper nowadays to have a chip that is
    > versatile and configured to a specific task. Older hardware had less
    > firmwares because the chips were made specifically for the board it was
    > in, and you had no problems with not having the source "code" of the
    > chip. So really, I see there is a double standard here, and a lot of
    > hypocrisy.


    See above, the same tale about double standards can be told as soon as
    other packages enter the picture.

    Thomas


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  11. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:00:54AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
    > PS: I've now managed to find firmware for qla1280
    > ,
    > tehuti
    > and
    > kaweth under a
    > 4-clause BSD licence, so they are candidates for firmware-nonfree after
    > all. The BSD driver for Cassini doesn't have the Saturn firmware patch
    > and there seems to be no BSD driver for Whiteheat.


    Heh, I can't believe those come from the same people who keep this as one of
    their official songs:

    http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39

    Our contradictions might not be so unique to Debian after all ...

    --
    Robert Millan

    The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
    how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
    still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  12. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:


    Interesting; Manoj's post isn't in the -vote archives on master. I wonder
    why that is?

    > > Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
    > > ,----
    > > | http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
    > > | General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
    > > `----
    > > To get a special dispensation for lenny.

    > I think this would be insane. [...]
    > I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, [...]


    Hrm, were you? Hey, we can check!

    V: 12 tb Thomas Bushnell
    -- http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_editorial_tally.txt

    (in favour of editorial amendments GR that made all non-free anything
    unambiguously unsuitable for main; except maybe license texts)

    V: 3457216 tb Thomas Bushnell
    -- http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_sarge_tally.txt

    ("The Debian Project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom,
    and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point
    updates to stable releases) that contains anything in the main or
    contrib sections which is not free software according to the DFSG.";
    with the various proposed exceptions for sarge ranged between [2] and
    [5], further discussion at [6], and reverting the previous GR at [7])

    V: 12 tb Thomas Bushnell
    -- http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004_tally.txt

    ("Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system
    (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the
    work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit,
    or by some other form of execution."; Further Discussion won the day)

    V: 231 tb Thomas Bushnell
    -- http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007_tally.txt

    (Options were "Release etch with DFSG problems, but no regressions
    compared to sarge", exemptions for images and for firmware while
    technically needed but with no specific end date, and further
    discussion; the first option won the day)

    Seems to me you held pretty much the same opinions then as you do now...

    > The kernel team should *fix the bug* and not just sit on their hands.


    You know, I haven't been paying any attention, but somehow I don't think
    the kernel team have really just been sitting on their hands. It just
    seems like maybe there's a third option, you know? Well, I don't and maybe
    I'm mistaken, so as a show of good faith, here's a photo of me sitting
    on my hands [0]. Because, hey, _someone_ must have been doing it, right?

    > We should not release until it's fixed.


    Why don't we embrace the principle fully, and remove all our old releases
    too? That's not sarcasm -- I just don't see a reason to reject that idea,
    but not also to keep compromising until there's no longer anything to
    compromise with. AFAICS, the idea is to stop Debian users and developers
    from kidding themselves that they've got a free OS and force them to fix
    the remaining problems until they do. And if that's really a good idea,
    why not commit to it?

    But hey, I never saw the problem with only wanting to distribute free
    /software/, and we know where that sort of thinking leads!

    > Moreover, at the time, there was an amendment proposed to make it "as
    > long as required" and it got fewer votes than the one-time thing.
    > Pretty clearly, we *already decided* this issue, and we need no vote.


    We decided there would be an exception for sarge, and another one for
    etch. I don't think there's been any decision made via GR on lenny,
    and even if there had been, another GR could quite reasonably overturn
    it if enough people felt it was warranted.

    > We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to fix
    > this means we will not be able to release".


    What good do you think that will do? Here, let me try:

    Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
    solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
    at least 2004 -- over four years ago! -- means we will continue to do
    releases with non-free software.

    Did it do any good? Is there something different about other maintainers
    that will make that logic work better on them, than you?

    > I object very strongly to the feeling that I am being held hostage by
    > developers who will not fix the bug, and then protest "emergency! we
    > must release! no delay! we'll do it next time!" and then sit on their
    > hands again for another go-round. The solution is to refuse to play
    > along, and to say, "hey, you had two years; we're just going to wait
    > until you fix the bug."


    "Hey, you've had four years; we're just going to keep releasing until
    you fix the bug."

    Hint: you're not being held hostage by anyone, seriously. You know how
    you can tell? Two words: Stockholm syndrome.

    Cheers,
    aj, who knows what completely ignoring the lists is like, and wants a
    fresh comparison of that to randomly trolling into flamewars

    [0] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/handsit.jpg

    It's really kinda difficult to take a photo of yourself sitting
    on both hands, especially when you can't be bothered going to any
    effort. Which would, after all, defeat the purpose.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  13. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard "not support
    > the hardware for installation" as acceptable.


    I'm very glad that history has shown most developers disagree with you.

    > So I can upload an NMU right now that fixes the problem?


    No, it's not OK. See <20081021094131.GF10841@sirena.org.uk> for a good
    description of an approach that would be welcome.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEABECAAYFAkj+K68ACgkQgm/Kwh6ICoR6GQCfSeqpOnFmqJNDVY5wl9HGQhBc
    Z7YAoLR3UPsJ3HkBbFuGZtd0YnXBmeAR
    =0lpj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  14. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
    exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
    list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
    that list?

    --
    * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
    * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  15. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > I see. So the previous statement that "nobody is standing in the way"
    > of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.


    That's nonsense. Uncoordinated NMUs are never acceptable for packages that
    are in general actively maintained (which the kernel is), especially not
    when it concerns controversial or technically complex changes [1].
    Doing so would be a violation of basic NMU policy.

    [1] This would seem to be both.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEABECAAYFAkj+P/AACgkQgm/Kwh6ICoRqFQCgn/NxztDPrEWOEgg3wbUw1Xk7
    f+cAoJZsr/w0g+ZUakoBCeDeeM225Nre
    =cL48
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  16. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:56 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:30:23PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
    > >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:16:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > You cannot ask, so late in the release process,
    > >>
    > >> Some of these bugs have been known for *years*. In one of them, I even got
    > >> a reply saying something along the lines of "I was expecting this one".
    > >>

    > >
    > > Debian is violating the DFSG by using a non-DFSG license for its
    > > website (see bug#238245). As the bug is opened for *years*, I suggest
    > > we proceed with the removal of the website.

    >
    > Yes, this is another thing we need to fix.
    >
    > > Any volunteer to work on that?

    >
    > First things first: Where do I record the fact that any
    > contribution I have made to the web site or the wiki may be licensed
    > under the GPL?


    As announced during DC8, the wiki is going to be relicensed, that's on
    our plan (It's just that some other stuffs have my attention ATM).
    The first step is to choose the license, so I can't give you an URL.

    Please, don't remove the wiki yet ! (but we will remove non-free stuffs
    from the wiki).

    Franklin


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  17. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
    > But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
    > major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
    > work, and rejecting anything simpler.


    Ever hear of the Technical Committee?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEABECAAYFAkj+SGYACgkQgm/Kwh6ICoTm5QCeLGAvqT5gSfHyL8zyN7SnHK8o
    mUsAoI3SDsQ4ukqlfDqVwZfJk1tIlLCB
    =ihLO
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  18. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > This is a technical dispute? Whether your packages need to comply with
    > the DFSG?


    Isn't a dispute about alternative fixes for a bug a technical dispute?
    I thought that was your point.

    The violation itself is not a matter for the TC (although it could be if
    the maintainer argued that it wasn't a violation at all). But whether
    your proposed fix is suitable for Debian when the maintainer prefers a
    different type of fix certainly is. And it would even be a matter for the
    TC to decide whether the maintainer is right in rejecting your fix as an
    intermediate solution.

    And if the TC agrees with the maintainer and you still want (to help get)
    the bug fixed, your only option will be to code the more complex fix.

    Anyway, I'm having a very hard time to take you seriously on any policy
    compliance issues as you are still CCing me on Debian listmail in
    violation of the Debian list policy despite a request I sent you earlier
    privately.

    EOD for me.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEABECAAYFAkj+UKQACgkQgm/Kwh6ICoRxWACfe3B+BsW6HND25eRtcEmIENI8
    0lAAoK7ppQ/mfCmh9loP4PTcLUMAY5TD
    =Wbbh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  19. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
    > William Pit**** writes:
    >
    > > Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
    > > ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available
    > > hardware at time of release.

    >
    > That's news to me. Where is such a dedication required? Is it some
    > special reading of the vague “our users” commitment, or do you get
    > this dedication from all Debian contributors some other way?
    >
    > Does that dedication somehow override every DD's explicit commitment
    > to ensuring Debian is 100% DFSG-free in the Social Contract?


    I worded that rather badly. You should imply "within acceptable terms of
    the DFSG" here... in this case, putting stuff in the nonfree firmware
    package in non-free is an acceptable solution.

    William


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI/lJloB+26npOQg4RAum4AJoDY5NkkjMq/f/NE6ejsMqRI1owCwCfW/Z8
    7/pdUy6MZ+eDbVl9LAMA+0w=
    =2ba5
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  20. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    William Pit**** writes:

    > Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
    > ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available
    > hardware at time of release.


    That's news to me. Where is such a dedication required? Is it some
    special reading of the vague “our users” commitment, or do you get
    this dedication from all Debian contributors some other way?

    Does that dedication somehow override every DD's explicit commitment
    to ensuring Debian is 100% DFSG-free in the Social Contract?

    --
    \ “Two paradoxes are better than one; they may even suggest a |
    `\ solution.” —Edward Teller |
    _o__) |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast