Neil McGovern | 9 Oct 01:31 2008
Picon

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:56:23AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:45:53AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:17:18AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
> > > people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to
> > > their users on first run of the software. It does not currently require
> > > them to accept to it, so they can easily bypass the license by just
> > > ignoring it.
> > 
> > .... and they retracted.
> 
> Well, crap, that'll teach me for procrastinating until the damn stuff
> gets outdated :-)
> 

Hi Wouter, MJ and Bas,

Given that this hasn't reached the required number of seconds for a
discussion period to start, and it's been three weeks since the initial
mail, are you happy for this to be dropped?

If I don't hear within a week (so 4 weeks after this version), I'll
assume it's dead.

Thanks,
Neil McGovern
--

-- 
< Erik_J> good day! i hear this might be a good place to get some technical
(Continue reading)

Wouter Verhelst | 10 Oct 12:56 2008
Picon

Debian and opinions (was: Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software)

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 12:31:33AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Given that this hasn't reached the required number of seconds for a
> discussion period to start, and it's been three weeks since the initial
> mail, are you happy for this to be dropped?

Yes. By now it's just plain too late; and given the lack of seconds, I
do not see it useful to still try to push this forward.

Having said that, there is one thing I still want to comment on: during
the discussion, Ross Burton suggested that this kind of statements is
not what Debian should be doing; that this is something more appropriate
for the FSF.

I for one do not think the FSF should have a monopoly on opinion within
the free software community. Although I have respect for what the FSF is
and what they have accomplished, I am not a member or a fellow or
any such thing of the FSF, and I have my reasons for that (though those
are outside the scope of this discussion).

I do think that the Debian project is an important citizen in the free
software community, and as such that we have a right and a duty to tell
others in the community when they are straying off the path. This can be
the mozilla project, but could just as well be any other organization;
indeed, on occasion we've even disagreed about freedom with the FSF
itself (remember the FDL?). If we indeed refuse to make statements about
other projects, then we, as a project, will collectively be putting our
head in the sand; and I do not think that is the right attitude--not
now, and not for any future similar situations we might encounter.

--

-- 
(Continue reading)

Adeodato Simó | 10 Oct 14:41 2008
Picon

Re: Debian and opinions (was: Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software)

* Wouter Verhelst [Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:56:11 +0200]:

> during the discussion, Ross Burton suggested

Obvious typo: Russ Allbery?

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org

- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
                -- Rory and Lorelai

--

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

Manoj Srivastava | 20 Oct 18:43 2008
X-Face
Face
Picon

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

On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Robert Millan wrote:

> Btw, I'm looking for supporters for a GR to stop this gross violation
> of the SC.  Any DDs who read this, please let me know if you're
> interested.

        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.

        If someone were to propose such a GR, I would second it. If the
 DPL gives us leave to cut down discussion and voting to a week, we
 could get the decision in a couple of weeks.

        I do not think that willfully violating the social contract is a
 decision for a few delegates to make -- we, as a project, should
 acknowledge the need for and make a special exception to release Debian
 with known non-free bits in it.

        manoj
--

-- 
If Machiavelli were a programmer, he'd have worked for AT&T.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

(Continue reading)

Thomas Bushnell BSG | 20 Oct 21:22 2008
Picon

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

On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 
> > I object to a second round of this.  I was ok with it once, as a
> > compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
> > thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.
> 
> Note that there is currently active upstream work to allow us to address
> these issues - some of the patches are present in 2.6.27, others are
> still in flight.  This is a vast step forward on where we were with etch
> if we do decide to go down the route of releasing with exceptions again.

I think we have no need to go "down that route".  We do not have to
support the hardware at all. That is an option.  The fact that the
kernel maintainers would prefer a fancier thing is not the point.

We can simply not ship support for that hardware *at all*.  That's
perfectly acceptable to me--even as a user of such hardware.

A patch to fix the bug--which is the inclusion of non-free things in
main--can be quickly and easily implemented.  I'm oh-so-sorry if a
fancier fix is not available--but there has been plenty of time.  I'm
not willing to see another release with non-free blobs in the kernel,
especially since it is really quite trivial to remove them.

> > We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to fix
> > this means we will not be able to release".
> 
> I don't think that's a particularly constructive approach to take,
> especially not in a volunteer project.
(Continue reading)

Thomas Bushnell BSG | 20 Oct 19:55 2008
Picon

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

On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         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.  It smacks of the nonsense of the US
Congress extending copyright over and over again, always for a "limited
term", but such that the terms just never actually expire.

I object to a second round of this.  I was ok with it once, as a
compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.

The kernel team should *fix the bug* and not just sit on their hands.
We should not release until it's fixed.

But the continued dishonesty of holding out one set of principles and guarantees, while granting
ourselves exceptions on every release, is not tolerable to me.

>         I do not think that willfully violating the social contract is a
>  decision for a few delegates to make -- we, as a project, should
>  acknowledge the need for and make a special exception to release Debian
>  with known non-free bits in it.

We did that once.  With the understanding that we wouldn't do it
again--or at least, that was my understanding--it was proffered as a
(Continue reading)

Mark Brown | 20 Oct 20:11 2008
Picon

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

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

> I object to a second round of this.  I was ok with it once, as a
> compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
> thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.

Note that there is currently active upstream work to allow us to address
these issues - some of the patches are present in 2.6.27, others are
still in flight.  This is a vast step forward on where we were with etch
if we do decide to go down the route of releasing with exceptions again.

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

I don't think that's a particularly constructive approach to take,
especially not in a volunteer project.

--

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

Mark Brown | 20 Oct 23:26 2008
Picon

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

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

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

> > I don't think that's a particularly constructive approach to take,
> > especially not in a volunteer project.

> I think that it is singularly non-constructive to see the maintainers of
> packages regard compliance with our foundational documents as wishlist
> items, and the release team regard such things as anything other than
> show-stoppers.

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.

If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that
would be different but I have not seen them doing this.

--

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

Thomas Bushnell BSG | 21 Oct 00:49 2008
Picon

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

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?

> If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that
> would be different but I have not seen them doing this.

Great, so since there won't be any active attempts to stop, I can just
go ahead with the work, right?

Thomas

Mark Brown | 21 Oct 11:41 2008
Picon

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

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:49:40PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that
> > would be different but I have not seen them doing this.

> Great, so since there won't be any active attempts to stop, I can just
> go ahead with the work, right?

Providing you work in a constructive fashion I really don't see why this
should be a problem.  This would involve efforts to work with the kernel
maintainers and release team, of course, rather than working with no
coordination at all.  As it turns out Ben has already been actively
working on this within Debian so I'd suggest that the most constructive
way forward would be to fill in the bits that are missing there, most of
which looked like testing.

--

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


Gmane