Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal - Debian

This is a discussion on Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal - Debian ; On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 16:25 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [...] > ,----[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ] [...] > | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every > | ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

  1. Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

    On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 16:25 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    [...]
    > ,----[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ]

    [...]
    > | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every
    > | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
    > | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of
    > | Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so.
    > |
    > | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
    > | majority)
    > `----

    [...]
    > ,----[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
    > | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
    > | community (Social Contract #4);

    [...]
    > | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every
    > | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
    > | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of
    > | Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the
    > | firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies
    > | with the DFSG.
    > `----

    [...]

    So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
    (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license
    that complies with the DFSG". But it is surely irrelevant whether the
    licence text says we can modify the source when the copyright holder is
    deliberately withholding the source. (Further, in some cases the
    licence is GPLv2 which requires us to redistribute the source we don't
    have - though thankfully there are only 1 or 2 such cases left.) So why
    do you claim that #2 and #3 override the SC but #5 doesn't?

    Ben.


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

    iD8DBQBJGQ6+79ZNCRIGYgcRAnITAJ4g/H5QX8LZcT8PRqR2xjc8n7+txwCdGjG9
    aRzURQx7Keon3qSgHi3Tucw=
    =OXZR
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

    On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
    >
    > > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
    > > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license
    > > that complies with the DFSG".

    >
    > Yes. Without that clause, one can say we could ship something
    > like nvidia drivers in main -- since we are legally allowed to do so,
    > even though the license might be very non-free otherwise. That opens a
    > hole the size of a bus to let non-free code into Debian. That earned it
    > the "overrides the SC" label.


    The nvidia drivers have never been in main, and AFAIK no-one claims they
    are firmware.

    > > But it is surely irrelevant whether the licence text says we can
    > > modify the source when the copyright holder is deliberately
    > > withholding the source. (Further, in some cases the licence is GPLv2
    > > which requires us to redistribute the source we don't have - though
    > > thankfully there are only 1 or 2 such cases left.)

    >
    > How do you know the author is withholding the source? Yes, I
    > suspect they are, and I doubt that the blobs are the preferred form of
    > modification, but these are judgement calls, not proof. I mean, I have
    > written programs in hex in my time; the hex blob _was_ the source
    > code. One of these programs was even for a radio transmitter on a
    > breadboard.


    But these are already DFSG-compliant and no resolution is required to
    say so.

    > All we are doing is is not throwing out code we suspect, but do
    > not know for a certainty, might violate the license it is distributed
    > under. Said license being DFSG free, though.

    [...]

    That's an even greater feat of double-think than is usual around
    non-free.

    Ben.


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

    iD8DBQBJGi7579ZNCRIGYgcRAjHeAJ0VFfRcWxNMjrb8mMUr7/R6Lc/SiACgs3OQ
    BpsUnuZCAwky8uko6piM5m4=
    =UR/+
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


+ Reply to Thread