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

[Teemu Likonen]

Ben Finney (2008-10-21 17:37 +1100):

> That's not the point being made: As I understand Manoj's point, it is
> that tagging a bug ‘lenny-ignore’ is an active decision that a
> particular bug, even if it represents a DFSG violation, will not be
> considered in the decision to release.
>
> To that extent, it *is* making the decision that it is acceptable to
> release Debian with DFSG-violating works, in advance of the decision
> to actually release.

OK guys, please. As a random Debian user may I suggest that you stop
investigating _who_ is violating DFSG and instead focus on _what_ things
are the cause of violating DFSG. I guess we know about the "what" part
already and that part exists in Sid too. So I think you should do

apt-get source linux-2.6

and go fix the issues you are concerned about - or help testing the
fixes provided by others (I might do some testing too). And perhaps the
users whose hardware won't be supported anymore appreciate some help on
how to work around their problem. (It looks like this includes me.)

Anyway, thanks for all the DDs and Debian community for this
mostly-pretty-good operating system.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Aurelien Jarno]

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:
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/391935>
> http://bugs.debian.org/498631>
> http://bugs.debian.org/494308>
> http://bugs.debian.org/494010>
> http://bugs.debian.org/494009>
> http://bugs.debian.org/494007>
> 
> 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
 `. `'   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Aurelien Jarno]

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
 `. `'   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Paul Wise]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mpeg encoder patents, Was: Bug#501190: ITP: moonlight

[Aniruddha]

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 16:44 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> At the very least, we could distribute them in a specific "patented"
> >> section, with rules similar to non-free, and that we’d only mirror in
> >> countries where it is not a problem.
> >
> > While we are at it, would be nice to have a section for DMCA-impaired 
> > software
> > such as libdvdcss.
> 
> How about this:
> 
>  - introduce a new section 'patented'
>  - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
>  - source packages in 'main' may produce binaries in 'patented'
>  - binary packages in 'main' must not depend on packages in 'patented'
>  - source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
>  - source and binary packages in 'patented' may depend on package on
>both 'main' and 'patented'
>  - source packages in 'patented' must not produce binaries in 'main'
>  - packages in 'contrib' and 'non-free' may additionally depend on packages
>in 'patented'
> 

> 
> Distributors (and archive administrators) that fear lawsuits from the
> MPEG LA could then easily stop mirroring 'patented', but still have a
> usable section 'main'.

I just wanted to say that sounds like a great idea. I really hope that
the packages of debian-multimedia are included in Debian someday.

It might also be interesting to see how Gentoo (and e.g. PCLinuxOS)
deals with packages like these. They have a lot of software in portage
that is considered patented. 

My guess is that as long as you don't physically distribute patent
protected software your fine. Let people add the repo's themselves (just
like debian multimedia).

-- 
Regards,

Aniruddha





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 21 octobre 2008 à 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.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

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

[Mark Brown]

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."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Bastian Blank]

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Weber]

Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 08:29 +0200 schrieb Marc Haber:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Aurelien Jarno]

Package: general
Severity: serious
Justification: DFSG

raff.debian.org uses a Compaq Smart 5i RAID card. A flash memory is used
to store the firmware. While the firmware is freely downloadable (as in
beer) on HP website [1], we don't have the corresponding source code.

I suggest that someone works with HP to get the corresponding source
code. Until we found a solution, I recommend we simply shutdown the
machine.

[1] 
http://h2.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareDescription.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodTypeId=329290&prodSeriesId=374803&prodNameId=266599&swEnvOID=4004&swLang=8&mode=2&taskId=135&swItem=MTX-3d1aaa0b48c04b628789e598d3

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-amd64
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Michal Čihař]

Hi

Dne Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:54 +0100
Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Didier Raboud]

Le mardi 21 octobre 2008 11:41:14, vous avez écrit :
> Package: general
> Severity: serious
> Justification: DFSG
>
> raff.debian.org uses a Compaq Smart 5i RAID card. A flash memory is used
> to store the firmware. While the firmware is freely downloadable (as in
> beer) on HP website [1], we don't have the corresponding source code.
>
> I suggest that someone works with HP to get the corresponding source
> code. Until we found a solution, I recommend we simply shutdown the
> machine.
>
> [1]
> http://h2.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareDescription.jsp?la
>ng=en&cc=us&prodTypeId=329290&prodSeriesId=374803&prodNameId=266599&swEnvOID
>=4004&swLang=8&mode=2&taskId=135&swItem=MTX-3d1aaa0b48c04b628789e598d3

Hi, 

considering this serious issue, instead of shutting down the machine which 
handles two important services [0], I would rather reconfigure the machine to 
use software RAID with mdadm and not using the hardware RAID card which leads 
to unacceptable use of non-free software in the core of Debian buildd's.

This will inevitably lead to temporary shutdown of these two services, which 
would have to be superseeded in another machine, running exclusively free 
software and no non-free blobs... And this needs work by powerful 
and "having-time" DD's, but freedom is maybe at that price.

Regards, 

OdyX

[0] buildd.debian.org - autobuild master
keyring.debian.org - debian keyring master and keyserver

-- 
Didier Raboud, proud Debian user.
CH-1802 Corseaux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:04:21AM +, 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
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 fuckwits have decided that less than 512 octets of firmware
(inside millions of slocs in the kernel) were not free enough.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpmheIWwUyMw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Processed: closing #502959

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> # go screw yourselves and do something useful, like find a bridge
> close 502959
Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Bug closed, send any further explanations to Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Luca Niccoli]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> raff.debian.org uses a Compaq Smart 5i RAID card. A flash memory is used
> to store the firmware. While the firmware is freely downloadable (as in
> beer) on HP website [1], we don't have the corresponding source code.

May I ask how many computers does the project debian use, which have
closed source BIOSes (or equivalent)?
Should those machines be shutdown until there is enough coreboot
supported [1] hardware available?
And, may I ask an other question:
should we really consider ourselves free, while we are just using free
software, but not hardware?
Should we stop using computers of which we don't have the projects, of
which we don't know the internal structure?
Should we stop using computers at all?

Luca
[1] http://www.coreboot.org



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

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
[EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right
uno zaino-- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mpeg encoder patents, Was: Bug#501190: ITP: moonlight

[Reinhard Tartler]

Aniruddha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I just wanted to say that sounds like a great idea. 

Thanks!

> I really hope that the packages of debian-multimedia are included in
> Debian someday.

I currently don't have the impression that the maintainer(s) of
http://debian-multimedia.org have any interest in getting these packages
in debian. Otherwise there would have been more discussion about
collaborative maintenance of these packages e.g. on the pkg-multimedia
mailing list.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, though.

> It might also be interesting to see how Gentoo (and e.g. PCLinuxOS)
> deals with packages like these. They have a lot of software in portage
> that is considered patented. 

I did some research on various other distributions:

 - gentoo ships an uncrippled copy of ffmpeg, with all encoders in. The
   packager there (lu_zero) is an active upstream developer as well.

 - for mandriva, I've been told by upstream that they also ship an
   unstripped ffmpeg package.

 - ubuntu 8.10 ships an unstripped ffmpeg package in the 'multiverse'
   component, maintained by myself. There is currently discussion about
   that inside the technical board about that.

 - fedora does not ship ffmpeg at
   all. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems. There is however
   efford by some fedora developers to provide uncrippled ffmpeg
   packages on http://rpmfusion.org. I recently joined their IRC channel.

 - SuSE is similar to fedora, the relevant extra repository seems to be
   http://packman.links2linux.de/


> My guess is that as long as you don't physically distribute patent
> protected software your fine. Let people add the repo's themselves (just
> like debian multimedia).

The problem is that we ship software that links against ffmpeg. And I'm
proud that debian can do that. Removing ffmpeg from unstable means
removing or crippling packages like mplayer, vlc, xine (+ the various
frontends), ffmpeg2theora, php5-ffmpeg and so on.

That is not a desireable solution IMO.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Peter Clifton]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:45 +0200, Luca Niccoli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > raff.debian.org uses a Compaq Smart 5i RAID card. A flash memory is used
> > to store the firmware. While the firmware is freely downloadable (as in
> > beer) on HP website [1], we don't have the corresponding source code.

This is just getting ludicrous.

Can we just keep to the sensible dividing line that code executing on
the computer's main CPU, _under_ the operating system (not BIOS / SMI)
should be "free" to whatever divined standard.

Peripheral hardware isn't designed for you to run arbitrary code on its
CPU, and the fact it requires a firmware blob uploading is merely an
implementation detail. (GPUs are borderline of course.)

Having no source-code for firmware is hardly that different to having a
completely open-source driver which does un-told magic by poking
un-documented registers in a complex chip. Think Intel graphics before
they released documentation for (some of) their chips.

-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Weber]

Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 12:57 +0200 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:04:21AM +, 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
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Romain Beauxis]

Le Tuesday 21 October 2008 13:10:28 Peter Clifton, vous avez écrit :
> Having no source-code for firmware is hardly that different to having a
> completely open-source driver which does un-told magic by poking
> un-documented registers in a complex chip. Think Intel graphics before
> they released documentation for (some of) their chips.

Agreed, though it does not restrain us from asking for free firmware.

If I recall well, one of the origin of the GNU fondation was the fact that 
having free drivers alowed one to actually *fix* issues he may have with his 
*own* hardware. Then, the very same reasoning can apply to binary firmware.

So, yes this is a brand new issue, that comes from the new way of designing 
hardware. But that doesn't mean we should give up and remain behind the line 
that was drawn 20 (or so) years ago. We now should also ask for open source 
firmware for the very same reason that this huge effort toward free drivers 
was done. If we did it for drivers, there's no reason we can't suceed for 
firmwares.


Romain



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Aurelien Jarno]

Romain Beauxis a écrit :
> Le Tuesday 21 October 2008 13:10:28 Peter Clifton, vous avez écrit :
>> Having no source-code for firmware is hardly that different to having a
>> completely open-source driver which does un-told magic by poking
>> un-documented registers in a complex chip. Think Intel graphics before
>> they released documentation for (some of) their chips.
> 
> Agreed, though it does not restrain us from asking for free firmware.
> 
> If I recall well, one of the origin of the GNU fondation was the fact that 
> having free drivers alowed one to actually *fix* issues he may have with his 
> *own* hardware. Then, the very same reasoning can apply to binary firmware.
> 
> So, yes this is a brand new issue, that comes from the new way of designing 
> hardware. But that doesn't mean we should give up and remain behind the line 
> that was drawn 20 (or so) years ago. We now should also ask for open source 
> firmware for the very same reason that this huge effort toward free drivers 
> was done. If we did it for drivers, there's no reason we can't suceed for 
> firmwares.
> 

And we should delay the release by 5 years until we have them...

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



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Török Edwin]

On 2008-10-21 14:30, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Tuesday 21 October 2008 13:10:28 Peter Clifton, vous avez écrit :
>   
>> Having no source-code for firmware is hardly that different to having a
>> completely open-source driver which does un-told magic by poking
>> un-documented registers in a complex chip. Think Intel graphics before
>> they released documentation for (some of) their chips.
>> 
>
> Agreed, though it does not restrain us from asking for free firmware.
>
> If I recall well, one of the origin of the GNU fondation was the fact that 
> having free drivers alowed one to actually *fix* issues he may have with his 
> *own* hardware. Then, the very same reasoning can apply to binary firmware.
>
> So, yes this is a brand new issue, that comes from the new way of designing 
> hardware. But that doesn't mean we should give up and remain behind the line 
> that was drawn 20 (or so) years ago. We now should also ask for open source 
> firmware for the very same reason that this huge effort toward free drivers 
> was done. If we did it for drivers, there's no reason we can't suceed for 
> firmwares.
>   

With firmwares you need much more than the source code for it in order
to make changes:
- documentation on how the hardware works internally
- documentation of what you are allowed to safely do from firmware
(without damaging the hardware)
- the tools used to compile the firmware, which are not necesarely open
source or free

If a vendor wants to provide that fine, but just because they don't it
doesn't mean we should stop using that
piece of hardware.

Best regards,
--Edwin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug Sprint - Oct 25 to Oct 30 - Register and eat cookies

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 21 octobre 2008 à 08:53 -0300, David Bremner a écrit :
> So downgrading bugs to non-RC severity (with appropriate rationale)
> does not count in the great cookie contest?

Of course it does count; added to the rules in the wiki page.

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


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Bug Sprint - Oct 25 to Oct 30 - Register and eat cookies

[David Bremner]

At Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:43:01 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote

> Fixing a RC bug means either of:
>   * Uploading a NMU that fixes the bug to unstable. 
>   * Convincing, with a mail that details the rationale, a release
> manager to tag the bug lenny-ignore. 
>   * Convincing, in a similar way, a release manager to remove the
> package from lenny. 


So downgrading bugs to non-RC severity (with appropriate rationale)
does not count in the great cookie contest?

d


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:38:31AM +, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Romain Beauxis a écrit :
> > Le Tuesday 21 October 2008 13:10:28 Peter Clifton, vous avez écrit :
> >> Having no source-code for firmware is hardly that different to having a
> >> completely open-source driver which does un-told magic by poking
> >> un-documented registers in a complex chip. Think Intel graphics before
> >> they released documentation for (some of) their chips.
> > 
> > Agreed, though it does not restrain us from asking for free firmware.
> > 
> > If I recall well, one of the origin of the GNU fondation was the fact that 
> > having free drivers alowed one to actually *fix* issues he may have with 
> > his 
> > *own* hardware. Then, the very same reasoning can apply to binary firmware.
> > 
> > So, yes this is a brand new issue, that comes from the new way of designing 
> > hardware. But that doesn't mean we should give up and remain behind the 
> > line 
> > that was drawn 20 (or so) years ago. We now should also ask for open source 
> > firmware for the very same reason that this huge effort toward free drivers 
> > was done. If we did it for drivers, there's no reason we can't suceed for 
> > firmwares.
> > 
> 
> And we should delay the release by 5 years until we have them...

I fear the hardware will be old at that time…

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpMPmOKJKOBU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug Sprint - Oct 25 to Oct 30 - Register and eat cookies

[Pierre Habouzit]

On mar, oct 21, 2008 at 11:57:48 +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 21 octobre 2008 à 08:53 -0300, David Bremner a écrit :
> > So downgrading bugs to non-RC severity (with appropriate rationale)
> > does not count in the great cookie contest?
> 
> Of course it does count; added to the rules in the wiki page.

Does bribing lucas into not using grid5k anymore works too ? :)


-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpt45yCrpRX8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Loïc Minier]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> If I recall well, one of the origin of the GNU fondation was the fact that 
> having free drivers alowed one to actually *fix* issues he may have with his 
> *own* hardware. Then, the very same reasoning can apply to binary firmware.

 Hardware can suffer from bugs which you can not fix; I'm happy to put
 firmware in the same bucket as long as there is a clear interface on
 which I can rely to get it to work most of the time.

 I'm using Google daily, but I don't have the source code that's running
 on their servers.  I don't mind shipping a firmware blob just like I
 don't mind having to press the power button to boot my laptop.  If it's
 a prerequirement to get the hardware to work with free drivers, and we
 have the rights to redistribute this blob, I see no problem.

> So, yes this is a brand new issue, that comes from the new way of designing 
> hardware. But that doesn't mean we should give up and remain behind the line 
> that was drawn 20 (or so) years ago. We now should also ask for open source 
> firmware for the very same reason that this huge effort toward free drivers 
> was done. If we did it for drivers, there's no reason we can't suceed for 
> firmwares.

 Happy if such a project is started outside of Debian, or within Debian,
 but not if it affects all current Debian users right now.

-- 
Loïc Minier


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug Sprint - Oct 25 to Oct 30 - Register and eat cookies

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:11:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Does bribing lucas into not using grid5k anymore works too ? :)

Definitely! Please add it to the rules :)

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug Sprint - Oct 25 to Oct 30 - Register and eat cookies

[Chris Lamb]

Josselin Mouette wrote:

> we are currently very close to release lenny which is most likely going
> to be absolutely awesome.
> 
> However, there are currently around 100 RC bugs remaining 

Apologies if this has already been brought up.

Using the number RC bugs that a present in lenny and sid is--in my
opinion--a rather misleading metric of bugs that require attention for
lenny.

This isn't just semantics; one obvious set of bugs that are missed here
are bugs that are only present in the upstream version correspending to
the version in lenny. We clearly care about these bugs.

Another example is that a fix that was uploaded to unstable and
unblocked for migration to lenny but it subsequently FTBFS on some arch.
Here, even if an explicit FTBFS bug is filed, it will only affects the
version in sid and will thus does not appear when applying the
bydist=both predicate.

I've found bugs in this category require considerably more work than
others, not only because they are typically indicative of a more serious
problem, but also because they require some syncing with -release and
the use of non-mainstream architectures.


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug Sprint - Oct 25 to Oct 30 - Register and eat cookies

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 21/10/08 at 14:11 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On mar, oct 21, 2008 at 11:57:48 +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mardi 21 octobre 2008 à 08:53 -0300, David Bremner a écrit :
> > > So downgrading bugs to non-RC severity (with appropriate rationale)
> > > does not count in the great cookie contest?
> > 
> > Of course it does count; added to the rules in the wiki page.
> 
> Does bribing lucas into not using grid5k anymore works too ? :)

I'm not sure that filing lots of bugs about missing Depends on
update-inetd really delays the release. Chris Lamb is fixing those bugs
faster than I file them anyway ;)
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Robert Millan]

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Depending on update-inetd [was: Re: Bug Sprint - Oct 25 to Oct 30 - Register and eat cookies]

[James Westby]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:39 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm not sure that filing lots of bugs about missing Depends on
> update-inetd really delays the release. Chris Lamb is fixing those bugs
> faster than I file them anyway ;)

You mean like this one?

  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=502706

Can I refer to

  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=466114

and

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/07/msg01013.html



One thing I have noticed about this is that update-inetd
contains /usr/share/perl5/DebianNet.pm, but other implementations
don't, so what should a package using the perl interface do?

Thanks,

James


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502980: ITP: ffc -- compiler for finite element variational forms

[Johannes Ring]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Package name: ffc
Version: 0.5.1
Upstream author: Anders Logg
URL: http://www.fenics.org/wiki/FFC
License: GPL
Description: compiler for finite element variational forms

The FEniCS Form Compiler FFC provides state-of-the-art automatic and
efficient evaluation of general multilinear forms (variational
formulations) for FEniCS. FFC functions as the form evaluation system
for DOLFIN but can also be used to compile forms for other systems.

FFC works as a compiler for multilinear forms by generating code (C or
C++) for the evaluation of a multilinear form given in mathematical
notation. This new approach to form evaluation makes it possible to
combine generality with efficiency; the form can be given in mathematical
notation and the generated code is as efficient as hand-optimized code.


Johannes Ring





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502986: ITP: libauthen-krb5-admin-perl -- Perl extension for MIT Kerberos 5 admin interface

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ansgar Burchardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: libauthen-krb5-admin-perl
  Version : 0.11
  Upstream Author : Andrew J. Korty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Authen-Krb5-Admin/
* License : BSD
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : Perl extension for MIT Kerberos 5 admin interface

 The Authen::Krb5::Admin module provides an object-oriented interface to
 the MIT Kerberos 5 admin server.

The package will be maintained by the Debian Perl Group.

Regards,
Ansgar



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Anthony Towns]

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: 12tb 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: 12tb 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 com

Re: Bug Sprint - Oct 25 to Oct 30 - Register and eat cookies

[Gunnar Wolf]

Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:50:59AM -0500]:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:11:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Does bribing lucas into not using grid5k anymore works too ? :)
> 
> Definitely! Please add it to the rules :)

Can Lucas be bribed with cookies? I always noticed some resemblance
between him and http://tinyurl.com/fix-RC-now

Greetings,

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 08:29 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?

Yes, I am thinking exactly that.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.

I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard "not support
the hardware for installation" as acceptable.  

I ask simply that the project's standards be *applied*, or that at the
very least, we have a resolution as we did before.  And yes, I would
likely vote against it, as I did before.  But in a democratic system,
people generally are well advised to accept the result of past votes
gracefully and work towards the next one.  That's what I did; my vote
did not carry the day last time, and I have not objected about that
decision since.  But I *do* object to the apparent new rule that the
ftpmasters and release engineers are now empowered to ignore DFSG
violations without any review by anyone else.

And now we have people saying, "hey, let's exempt firmware from the
DFSG!" again, even though we have a GR on topic which decided that, no,
firmware counts.

> "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.

So I can upload an NMU right now that fixes the problem?  That will be
ok?

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Manoj Srivastava]

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?

manoj
-- 
Ship it.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:


> Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
> or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
> then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal
> with the copyright holders to relicense (and mesa has made it, proof
> that it's possible, but it needed like 2 or 3 releases of Debian to do
> so !), the Release team acknowledge that progress has been made, and
> tags the bugs $suite-ignore.

This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
 delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made
 to violate a foundation document in our release.  Just like an
 individual developer does not have a right to decide to violate the
 DFSG in their work, I think the release team, which prepares the
 release, can do so unilaterally either (I did not vote for Bush).

This is why my contention has been that the developer body, as a
 whole, has to be brought into the decision loop, like they have
 for the last two releases, and  make sure we, as a project, stand
 behind the decision, not just a few hapless RMs.

So, I would like to see an option on the ballot that sates that
 we will release Lenny with known DFSG violations, we believe in the SC,
 but we also have to respect the needs of users, and we think progress
 is being made towards ensuring that the needs of our users can be met
 with free software in the future. I just do not think this is within
 delegate or individual developer powers.

manoj

-- 
VMS must die!
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Bastian Blank wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for the response. The DRM modules are need for 3D
 acceleration, right? So the box can be installed, and is usable for
 non-gaming purposes. The drm stuff can possibly be gotten from non
 free, like we do nvidia accelerated drivers today?

If that is the case, the drm drivers should not be an obstacle.

manoj
 who has not yet switched to the free drivers for nvidia cards yet
-- 
Information is the inverse of entropy.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

> 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:
>> 
>> http://bugs.debian.org/391935>> 
>> http://bugs.debian.org/498631>> 
>> http://bugs.debian.org/494308>> 
>> http://bugs.debian.org/494010>> 
>> http://bugs.debian.org/494009>> 
>> http://bugs.debian.org/494007>> 
>> 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.

I'll sign up to be on the maintainers list for such a package.

manoj
-- 
Madison's Inquiry: If you have to travel on the Titanic, why not go
first class?
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 
> 
> > Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
> > or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
> > then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal
> > with the copyright holders to relicense (and mesa has made it, proof
> > that it's possible, but it needed like 2 or 3 releases of Debian to do
> > so !), the Release team acknowledge that progress has been made, and
> > tags the bugs $suite-ignore.
> 
> This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
>  delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made
>  to violate a foundation document in our release.  Just like an
>  individual developer does not have a right to decide to violate the
>  DFSG in their work, I think the release team, which prepares the
>  release, can do so unilaterally either (I did not vote for Bush).

And you're comfortable with ftp-master ruling DFSG-iness through NEW
then ? I don't really see the difference.

FWIW you can query all the lenny-ignore bugs on the BTS, there arent a
lot, and check if you agree. Unlike Bush (and the reference is quite
offensive, really) we don't hide such matters, and we never said we're
not open to discussion.

BUt yeah, tagging bugs lenny-ignore is part of the RM tasks, and we're
delegated for that (among other things).
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpeCB75Wilwy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenn y-ignore’?

[Alexandre Oliva]

Hi,

Sorry if this breaks threading, I'm not on this list, I was merely
referred to the discussion through the archives.  If you respond to
this e-mail, please address your replies directly to myself as well,
so that I can respond without further breaking threading.

I applaud Debian's willingness, even if hesitant and heated, to tackle
this issue.

I'm here to point out that there's some exaggeration and false
dilemmas being presented as objections to the liberation of the kernel
in Debian main.

I saw references to e100 and ATI video cards.  Although it is true
that linux-libre and other proposed means to remove their blobs might
cause some hardware to malfunction or fail, I haven't come across any
such hardware myself.  I do have computers with e100 network cards and
ATI video cards, and they keep on working just fine with linux-libre.
Now, I don't know whether the absence of the firmware causes degraded
functionality, or whether it is just not necessary for the specific
hardware I own.  But assuming that the removal of these pieces of
firmware would break all instances of said hardware is a mistake.

As for the false dilemmas...  It just doesn't hold that offering a
Free kernel in main leaves users out in the cold.  As much as I oppose
the notion of distributing non-Free Software, if Debian doesn't, you
might as well *also* ship an encumbered kernel in non-Free, just like
you're planning on shipping stand-alone non-Free firmware, as well as
non-Free firmware that was, let's say, disintegrated :-) from the
kernel proper.  Having yet another kernel, and having it in non-free,
might not be as convenient, but having only the non-free kernel, and
in main while at that, amounts to betraying your foundations, denying
freedom to your users, and fooling some of them on top of that.
Please think very carefully before doing that.

Anyhow, if you do decide to ship a Free kernel in Debian GNU/Linux
main, please remember that cleaning up the kernel binaries is only
part of the work; if the corresponding sources still contain the
non-Free blobs, whoever distributes the binaries is also required to,
at the very least, (pass on an) offer to distribute non-Free Software.
That's why we prepare cleaned-up Linux-libre tarballs, that distros
can use directly, or build upon, applying whatever patches they'd have
otherwise applied on the non-Free kernel published at kernel.org.

Thanks, and keep up the good work,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Frans Pop]

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for a good 
description of an approach that would be welcome.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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

[William Pitcock]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 10:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard "not support
> the hardware for installation" as acceptable.  

Luckily very few others do.

Failing to support anything that was infact, supported by Etch, that
isn't absolutely positively ancient, is a regression.

> 
> I ask simply that the project's standards be *applied*, or that at the
> very least, we have a resolution as we did before.  And yes, I would
> likely vote against it, as I did before.  But in a democratic system,
> people generally are well advised to accept the result of past votes
> gracefully and work towards the next one.  That's what I did; my vote
> did not carry the day last time, and I have not objected about that
> decision since.  But I *do* object to the apparent new rule that the
> ftpmasters and release engineers are now empowered to ignore DFSG
> violations without any review by anyone else.
> 
> And now we have people saying, "hey, let's exempt firmware from the
> DFSG!" again, even though we have a GR on topic which decided that, no,
> firmware counts.

Shipping Lenny within a reasonable timeframe is more important than
firmware. If the release managers feel that firmware bugs should be
tagged lenny-ignore, than it is because they feel that fixing these bugs
would likely delay the Lenny release too long. Note that Debian is
already distributing this stuff in sid, so why give Lenny special
treatment?

If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
redistributable firmware can belong in firmware-nonfree.

But that goal will simply not be realized before Lenny is released, if
we intend to ship Lenny anytime soon.

> 
> > "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.
> 
> So I can upload an NMU right now that fixes the problem?  That will be
> ok?

If the NMU involves removing support for hardware, then no, the NMU's
solution would be in my opinion unacceptable, and hopefully enough
people agree that it would be rejected.

The correct solution here would be to work with the kernel team and
derive a list of acceptable goals that still result in Lenny being
shipped in a reasonable timeframe.

William


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
> >  delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made
> >  to violate a foundation document in our release.  Just like an
> >  individual developer does not have a right to decide to violate the
> >  DFSG in their work, I think the release team, which prepares the
> >  release, can do so unilaterally either (I did not vote for Bush).
> 
> And you're comfortable with ftp-master ruling DFSG-iness through NEW
> then ? I don't really see the difference.

I can't speak for Manoj, but for my own part, I have not seen any
evidence that ftp-master is letting things through NEW which are in
clear violation of the DFSG, so it doesn't come up.

> FWIW you can query all the lenny-ignore bugs on the BTS, there arent a
> lot, and check if you agree. Unlike Bush (and the reference is quite
> offensive, really) we don't hide such matters, and we never said we're
> not open to discussion.
> 
> BUt yeah, tagging bugs lenny-ignore is part of the RM tasks, and we're
> delegated for that (among other things).

So far, the release team has shown no awareness in this thread that
ignoring a technical RC bug is entirely different from ignoring a
violation of the core documents of the project.  Nobody is talking about
technical bugs, and it would be helpful if y'all stopped bringing them
up.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 21:21 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for a good 
> description of an approach that would be welcome.

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.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Kalle Kivimaa]

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:41:14AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: serious
> Justification: DFSG
> 
> raff.debian.org uses a Compaq Smart 5i RAID card. A flash memory is used
> to store the firmware. While the firmware is freely downloadable (as in
> beer) on HP website [1], we don't have the corresponding source code.
> 
> I suggest that someone works with HP to get the corresponding source
> code. Until we found a solution, I recommend we simply shutdown the
> machine.
> 
> [1] 
> http://h2.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareDescription.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodTypeId=329290&prodSeriesId=374803&prodNameId=266599&swEnvOID=4004&swLang=8&mode=2&taskId=135&swItem=MTX-3d1aaa0b48c04b628789e598d3

By that stupid definition, the BIOS in your machine should be the first
target.

If the firmware is in a flash chip on the card, then the card works fine
as shipped and needs no firmware to be included with Debian for the card
to work.

This is rather different than say, ivti, bnx2, and similar, which
require the firmware to be loaded by linux on every boot and hence
provided by linux to the hardware.

-- 
Len Sorensen



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
> several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
> in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
> redistributable firmware can belong in firmware-nonfree.

Do we have an ironclad commitment to not add any additional non-DFSG
firmware, period, no matter what?  I would accept a compromise which
guaranteed an increasing slope.  But not a back-and-forth thing.  Your
reply focuses on regression issues, so is that really sufficient?  We
guarantee that, say, there will always be *less* non-DFSG firmware in
each release, and we guarantee that there will never be *new* non-DFSG
firmware.

> If the NMU involves removing support for hardware, then no, the NMU's
> solution would be in my opinion unacceptable, and hopefully enough
> people agree that it would be rejected.

Thought so.  So the claim that "nobody is standing in the way" was
simply false.  People are standing in the way of a simple fix for a
simple bug, and insisting on a more complex fix.  I agree completely
that the more complex fix is better, but it is simply not true that
nobody is standing in the way of a fix.  Rather, they have declared that
only one sort of fix is tolerable, and mostly refused to discuss the
question.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 01:30:42PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Agreed, though it does not restrain us from asking for free firmware.
> 
> If I recall well, one of the origin of the GNU fondation was the fact that 
> having free drivers alowed one to actually *fix* issues he may have with his 
> *own* hardware. Then, the very same reasoning can apply to binary firmware.

Having driver source code lets you fix the drivers and port htem to
other operating systems and architectures.  Having firmware source makes
no difference to that problem as long as the firmware is working.  If it
isn't working, you would probably know soon enough and return the
defective hardware.

> So, yes this is a brand new issue, that comes from the new way of designing 
> hardware. But that doesn't mean we should give up and remain behind the line 
> that was drawn 20 (or so) years ago. We now should also ask for open source 
> firmware for the very same reason that this huge effort toward free drivers 
> was done. If we did it for drivers, there's no reason we can't suceed for 
> firmwares.

Except the firmware is just a way to implement the board logic and has
nothing to do with deciding which system you can use the hardware in.
The drivers do control which system you can use the hardware with.

Free open firmware is a nice goal, but a significantly less important
one than open drivers (or at least specifications) to allow you to
choose your OS and software to use that hardware with.

-- 
Len Sorensen



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Frans Pop]

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.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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

[William Pitcock]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 13:30 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> > If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
> > several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
> > in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
> > redistributable firmware can belong in firmware-nonfree.
> 
> Do we have an ironclad commitment to not add any additional non-DFSG
> firmware, period, no matter what?  I would accept a compromise which
> guaranteed an increasing slope.  But not a back-and-forth thing.  Your
> reply focuses on regression issues, so is that really sufficient?  We
> guarantee that, say, there will always be *less* non-DFSG firmware in
> each release, and we guarantee that there will never be *new* non-DFSG
> firmware.

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

If those drivers require firmware, then we can work to ensure that they
use the kernel's firmware loading framework. This is a cause that is a
good idea for many practical reasons excluding ensuring the firmware is
segregated to firmware-nonfree.

However, not supporting the latest 3ware RAID card due to non-free
firmware, as an example, would be unacceptable, considering Debian's
strong foundation in being run on servers.

Likewise, failing to support the latest 3D hardware or audio hardware
when DFSG-free drivers are available, but depend on non-DFSG firmware,
will lose Debian users on desktop hardware as well.

That said, Debian release cycles are fairly long, so there's time to
make sure things are implemented right in the future.

> 
> > If the NMU involves removing support for hardware, then no, the NMU's
> > solution would be in my opinion unacceptable, and hopefully enough
> > people agree that it would be rejected.
> 
> Thought so.  So the claim that "nobody is standing in the way" was
> simply false.  People are standing in the way of a simple fix for a
> simple bug, and insisting on a more complex fix.  I agree completely
> that the more complex fix is better, but it is simply not true that
> nobody is standing in the way of a fix.  Rather, they have declared that
> only one sort of fix is tolerable, and mostly refused to discuss the
> question.

People are not standing in your way as long as it does not cause
regressions or break support for current hardware that people may wish
to use.

William


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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

[Franklin PIAT]

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> 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.

The claim was, hey, nobody is stopping anyone from fixing it, if it's
not fixed, it's lame for people to complain, they should have fixed it.

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.

Yes, certainly the team has the right to make such roadblocks if they
think it best, in principle.  But then that's what's happening: they are
standing in the way of implementing a quicker simpler fix.

You can either blame people for not uploading their own fix or prohibit
them from doing so, but you can't do both at the same time.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
> ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
> at time of release. 

No matter what our principles are?  Wow.  Why are we not equally
committed to supporting the latest proprietary codecs?  

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> 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?

I would be entirely happy with that.  But I have just been told by
William Pitcock that apparently we are required somehow to support new
hardware with non-free software too.  So it's not a decreasing list,
it's an accordion list with no real commitment to the DFSG at all.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Frans Pop]

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?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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

[William Pitcock]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I would be entirely happy with that.  But I have just been told by
> William Pitcock that apparently we are required somehow to support new
> hardware with non-free software too.  So it's not a decreasing list,
> it's an accordion list with no real commitment to the DFSG at all.

Do not put words into my mouth. I simply stated that user experience is
an important factor, and that if free drivers (*FREE*) which depend on
non-free firmware are available, and the firmware is inline, then it
should not block Lenny's release.

William



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:23 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> 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?

This is a technical dispute?  Whether your packages need to comply with
the DFSG?



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > > 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?
> > 
> > I would be entirely happy with that.  But I have just been told by
> > William Pitcock that apparently we are required somehow to support new
> > hardware with non-free software too.  So it's not a decreasing list,
> > it's an accordion list with no real commitment to the DFSG at all.
> 
> Do not put words into my mouth. I simply stated that user experience is
> an important factor, and that if free drivers (*FREE*) which depend on
> non-free firmware are available, and the firmware is inline, then it
> should not block Lenny's release.

Huh?  So you would be willing to agree to a rule that we never add
anything new to the list of non-free bits?  

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[William Pitcock]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:36 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > > 
> > > I would be entirely happy with that.  But I have just been told by
> > > William Pitcock that apparently we are required somehow to support new
> > > hardware with non-free software too.  So it's not a decreasing list,
> > > it's an accordion list with no real commitment to the DFSG at all.
> > 
> > Do not put words into my mouth. I simply stated that user experience is
> > an important factor, and that if free drivers (*FREE*) which depend on
> > non-free firmware are available, and the firmware is inline, then it
> > should not block Lenny's release.
> 
> Huh?  So you would be willing to agree to a rule that we never add
> anything new to the list of non-free bits?  

In the kernel itself, yes. Provided that:

  * the kernel framework for loading firmware is used for drivers
depending on non-free firmware, and
  * that firmware is available in non-free via firmware-nonfree

Infact, once I have time, I intend to start pushing patches upstream to
make this happen.

But this is going to take another kernel release cycle... if we intend
to release Lenny with 2.6.26, than this is not an option.

For hardware where this is an unacceptable solution, rewriting the
driver to not use the firmware may still be possible.

William


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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

[Frans Pop]

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.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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

[Ean Schuessler]

- "Thomas Bushnell BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> > Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
> > ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
> > at time of release. 

Really do have to disagree there. We should absolutely preferentially support 
quality hardware that facilitate user control.

>From a purely practical standpoint, there may come a time (because of 
>evolutions in nanotech or who knows what) where certain type of digital 
>technologies have strong controls that must be honored in order to preserve 
>the safety of the general public. Given that scenerio I think we would have to 
>be "100% free" and "100% obey the law". I think we can leave it to others to 
>break the law for us (or, preferrably, secure legal permissions through proper 
>channels). We don't need to distribute binary blobs to have a useful 
>foundation for building other things.

If I was going to suggest any kind of change to the Social Contract at this 
point it would be:

6. Debian will obey the law

We acknowledge that our users live in real communities in the real world. We 
will support the needs of our users to comply with the laws that are applicable 
in the places where they use their software. We will strive to create the most 
usable operating system legally possible for our users. Within the boundaries 
of our resources we will work with our developers to track and adapt the 
changes necessary for them to comply with the laws and rules of their local 
authority. In the jurisdiction of authorities which are antagonistic to the 
cause of Free Software we will work within the boundaries of the law to promote 
change to a more open system.

...

Obviously, we can't be in the position of asking our donors or our users to 
purposefully break the law. Where law and logistics make it impossible to be 
"completely free" we must strive to be as "free as legally possible" and work 
to promote positive change.

-- 
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Ben Finney]

William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[William Pitcock]

On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Romain Beauxis]

Le Tuesday 21 October 2008 22:28:31 Lennart Sorensen, vous avez écrit :
> > If I recall well, one of the origin of the GNU fondation was the fact
> > that having free drivers alowed one to actually *fix* issues he may have
> > with his *own* hardware. Then, the very same reasoning can apply to
> > binary firmware.
>
> Having driver source code lets you fix the drivers and port htem to
> other operating systems and architectures.  Having firmware source makes
> no difference to that problem as long as the firmware is working.  If it
> isn't working, you would probably know soon enough and return the
> defective hardware.

Firmware updates also happen to fix bugs..

Romain



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Include justification in tagging bugs ‘$FOO-ign ore’

[Ben Finney]

Howdy all,

As I understand it, the ‘$FOO-ignore’ tag is a means to tell related
tools that a bug should not be considered in the criteria for the
release of $FOO.

While the tools will do what they're told, it seems to me that such
tags are mostly used to treat individual bugs as a special case. In
such special cases, much distress can be avoided on the part of the
potentially numerous humans observing the bug report if we require, in
the very message that tags the bug ‘$FOO.ignore’, an explicit
justification of *why* this particular bug does not merit such
consideration.

In other words, if a tag indicates a special case, that special case
should be justified with a specific explanation.

I would like to see such justification expected for every such tag,
enforced by the convention that tags with *no* justification provided
can be summarily removed by anyone. This would place the burden of
argument in the correct place, as I see it, while not needing anything
as heavy-handed as a policy requirement.

Is that feasible? Is it reasonable?

(good sigmonster, have a cookie)

-- 
 \ “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, |
  `\   neat, and wrong.” —Henry L. Mencken |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Weber]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:06:29PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.

May I suggest that people cool down a little bit and don't assume the
worst from the other participants of the discussion.

Shit happens[1], throwing mud doesn't improve the atmosphere at all.

[1] That includes, but is not limited to, bugs in packages and
suboptimal wording in e-mails.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Gunnar Wolf]

Ean Schuessler dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:35:55PM -0500]:
>
> If I was going to suggest any kind of change to the Social Contract
> at this point it would be:
> 
> 6. Debian will obey the law
> 
> We acknowledge that our users live in real communities in the real
> world. We will support the needs of our users to comply with the
> laws that are applicable in the places where they use their
> software. We will strive to create the most usable operating system
> legally possible for our users. Within the boundaries of our
> resources we will work with our developers to track and adapt the
> changes necessary for them to comply with the laws and rules of
> their local authority. In the jurisdiction of authorities which are
> antagonistic to the cause of Free Software we will work within the
> boundaries of the law to promote change to a more open system.
> 
> ...
> 
> Obviously, we can't be in the position of asking our donors or our
> users to purposefully break the law. Where law and logistics make it
> impossible to be "completely free" we must strive to be as "free as
> legally possible" and work to promote positive change.

Umh, problem is the myriad of jurisdictions all over the world. This
would very easily become unfeasible. In the end, it ends up being each
user's responsability to obey the law the best way he can. Debian
helps as much as possible by only using valid, free and compatible
licensing schemes - but if in West Namibia it becomes illegal to
digitally manipulate photographies, we won't stop shipping photo
manipulation programs. 

Greetings,

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:06 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> 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.

Of course; that's an excellent solution.  Right now, the failure to have
that solution implemented is being used as an excuse for violating SC#1.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Norbert Preining]

On Di, 21 Okt 2008, Luca Niccoli wrote:
> > raff.debian.org uses a Compaq Smart 5i RAID card. A flash memory is used
> > to store the firmware. While the firmware is freely downloadable (as in
> > beer) on HP website [1], we don't have the corresponding source code.
> 
> May I ask how many computers does the project debian use, which have
> closed source BIOSes (or equivalent)?

100% agreed. We should shut down the Debian project until enough
coreboot is added.

In the end, all these discussions showed that many people here don't
give a piss for the users.

So lets brain fuck ourselves into eternity about eternal freeness.

Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
ROCHESTER (n.)
One who is able to gain occupation of the armrest on both sides of
their cinema or aircraft seat.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Ben Hutchings]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:35 +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Dne Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:54 +0100
> Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.

Sorry about that.  I've fixed permissions now.

Ben.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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

[Ben Hutchings]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:55 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry if this breaks threading, I'm not on this list, I was merely
> referred to the discussion through the archives.  If you respond to
> this e-mail, please address your replies directly to myself as well,
> so that I can respond without further breaking threading.
> 
> I applaud Debian's willingness, even if hesitant and heated, to tackle
> this issue.
> 
> I'm here to point out that there's some exaggeration and false
> dilemmas being presented as objections to the liberation of the kernel
> in Debian main.
> 
> I saw references to e100 and ATI video cards.  Although it is true
> that linux-libre and other proposed means to remove their blobs might
> cause some hardware to malfunction or fail, I haven't come across any
> such hardware myself.  I do have computers with e100 network cards and
> ATI video cards, and they keep on working just fine with linux-libre.
>
> Now, I don't know whether the absence of the firmware causes degraded
> functionality, or whether it is just not necessary for the specific
> hardware I own.

Correct.  The e100 driver works with a large family of controllers, some
of which need the driver to supply firmware and some which don't
(presumably it's built in).  The r128 and radeon kernel drivers only
deal with 3D functionality and the X server can drive the 2D part
without them.

> But assuming that the removal of these pieces of
> firmware would break all instances of said hardware is a mistake.

Unfortunately that's something we don't really know, and it may take
some time to discover just what the impact is.  So while I'm continuing
to work on separation of firmware, I leave it to the kernel and release
teams to judge whether these changes are worth making before lenny.

[...]
> Anyhow, if you do decide to ship a Free kernel in Debian GNU/Linux
> main, please remember that cleaning up the kernel binaries is only
> part of the work; if the corresponding sources still contain the
> non-Free blobs,
[...]

They don't - there is a script to strip them from the upstream sources.

Ben.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Correct way to move /etc config files

[Luca Capello]

Hi there!

This mail originates from the discussion at [1]: simply, I need to move
an /etc file (/etc/frameworkd.conf) from one package (fso-frameworkd) to
another one (fso-config-gta02).

However, I don't really know the best way to manage this situation and I
cannot find any reference on the Debian Developer's Reference [2] nor on
the Debian Policy [3] nor the Debian wiki [4].

What I've implemented until now is [5]:
=
> +++ b/debian/control
[...]
> +Package: fso-config-gta02
> +Architecture: all
> +Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, fso-frameworkd (>= 
> 0.2.0-git20080909-7)
> +Conflicts: fso-frameworkd (<< 0.2.0-git20080909-6)
=

fso-frameworkd 0.2.0-git-20080909-6 still contains /etc/frameworkd.conf,
while 0.2.0-git-20080909-7 doesn't.  Please someone correct me ;-)

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes: 
[1] 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fso-maint/2008-October/000182.html
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/
[3] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
[4] http://wiki.debian.org/
[5] 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fso-maint/2008-October/000177.html


pgp8q3wiiH43w.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Ean Schuessler]

- "Gunnar Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Umh, problem is the myriad of jurisdictions all over the world. This
> would very easily become unfeasible. In the end, it ends up being each
> user's responsability to obey the law the best way he can. Debian
> helps as much as possible by only using valid, free and compatible
> licensing schemes - but if in West Namibia it becomes illegal to
> digitally manipulate photographies, we won't stop shipping photo
> manipulation programs. 

I guess the question is, staying in the arena of "100% Free", what if DRM 
technologies become pervasive in the United States and Europe and it literally 
becomes illegal to have a computer without some proprietary software in it? 
What if it becomes impossible to develop on a computer, legally, without 
compromising? Would it still be better to have a computer that is 99.9% free? 
Keep in mind that I'm asking this in the scenario where providing the last 
0.01% as Free Software would be illegal.

With the way cell phones and hosted applications are developing it might not be 
so far-fetched.

-- 
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  acceleration, right? So the box can be installed, and is usable for
>  non-gaming purposes. The drm stuff can possibly be gotten from non

You can always use VESA, yes.  I don't think the X.org driver can get an ATI
GPU to work without the memory management *microcode* (but I didn't know that
thing was still non-free).

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Ben Hutchings]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:00 +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> Ben Finney (2008-10-21 17:37 +1100):
> 
> > That's not the point being made: As I understand Manoj's point, it is
> > that tagging a bug ‘lenny-ignore’ is an active decision that a
> > particular bug, even if it represents a DFSG violation, will not be
> > considered in the decision to release.
> >
> > To that extent, it *is* making the decision that it is acceptable to
> > release Debian with DFSG-violating works, in advance of the decision
> > to actually release.
> 
> OK guys, please. As a random Debian user may I suggest that you stop
> investigating _who_ is violating DFSG and instead focus on _what_ things
> are the cause of violating DFSG.

Already done.

> I guess we know about the "what" part
> already and that part exists in Sid too. So I think you should do
> 
> apt-get source linux-2.6
> 
> and go fix the issues you are concerned about - or help testing the
> fixes provided by others (I might do some testing too). And perhaps the
> users whose hardware won't be supported anymore appreciate some help on
> how to work around their problem. (It looks like this includes me.)

I just wrote this:

http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/for-those-who-care-about-firmware.html

Ben.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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

[Ben Finney]

Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I just wrote this:
> 
> http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/for-those-who-care-about-firmware.html

Great! Many thanks for this constructive work.

-- 
 \ “I was arrested today for scalping low numbers at the deli. |
  `\ Sold a number 3 for 28 bucks.” —Steven Wright |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:45 -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I guess the question is, staying in the arena of "100% Free", what if
> DRM technologies become pervasive in the United States and Europe and
> it literally becomes illegal to have a computer without some
> proprietary software in it? What if it becomes impossible to develop
> on a computer, legally, without compromising? Would it still be better
> to have a computer that is 99.9% free? Keep in mind that I'm asking
> this in the scenario where providing the last 0.01% as Free Software
> would be illegal.

If that happens, we will have to make some difficult choices.  But we
are nowhere near that now.  For example, I vote, as a matter of
principle.  But if I lived in various extreme situations, I would not
vote, for example, if I were in a one-party state with no real
elections.  And then *that* principle might well be one I would
compromise on if the state in question enforced serious criminal
penalties on non-voters.  And so it goes.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software

[Kelly Clowers]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Di, 21 Okt 2008, Luca Niccoli wrote:
>> > raff.debian.org uses a Compaq Smart 5i RAID card. A flash memory is used
>> > to store the firmware. While the firmware is freely downloadable (as in
>> > beer) on HP website [1], we don't have the corresponding source code.
>>
>> May I ask how many computers does the project debian use, which have
>> closed source BIOSes (or equivalent)?
>
> 100% agreed. We should shut down the Debian project until enough
> coreboot is added.
>
> In the end, all these discussions showed that many people here don't
> give a piss for the users.

As a mere user I very glad that Debian stands where it does on the
spectrum of caring about users vs caring about freedom. It is one of
the major reasons I am a user of Debian.


Cheers,
Kelly Clowers


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Correct way to move /etc config files

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:00:34AM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> Hi there!

> This mail originates from the discussion at [1]: simply, I need to move
> an /etc file (/etc/frameworkd.conf) from one package (fso-frameworkd) to
> another one (fso-config-gta02).

> However, I don't really know the best way to manage this situation and I
> cannot find any reference on the Debian Developer's Reference [2] nor on
> the Debian Policy [3] nor the Debian wiki [4].

Use Replaces:, just as for other files that move between packages.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Correct way to move /etc config files

[James Vega]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:32:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:00:34AM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> > Hi there!
> 
> > This mail originates from the discussion at [1]: simply, I need to move
> > an /etc file (/etc/frameworkd.conf) from one package (fso-frameworkd) to
> > another one (fso-config-gta02).
> 
> > However, I don't really know the best way to manage this situation and I
> > cannot find any reference on the Debian Developer's Reference [2] nor on
> > the Debian Policy [3] nor the Debian wiki [4].
> 
> Use Replaces:, just as for other files that move between packages.

As I understand it, you should also remove the conffile[0] from the
original package according.  If you do not, you'll run into bugs like
#499451.

[0] - http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling
-- 
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Vincent Danjean]

Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I just wrote this:
> 
> http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/for-those-who-care-about-firmware.html

  Hi,

  Thank you for your constructive work in this area.
Looking at your packages, I've a question. I see one package per firmware
without version number in the package name.
  Do you think about a way to have different kernels that each requires
different firmware versions (for the same hardware) ?
It seems to me that this problem is not addressed by current firmware-*
package (packages already in Debian and your new ones), unless it is
expected that firmware packages will change their name. However, I think
this is a problem we must take into account for long term support.
  Just to clarify, I see your work as an improvement (ie I do not see my
question as reason to delay the merge of your work)

  Regards,
Vincent


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

How to indicate the license of our contributions to wiki.debian.org.

[Charles Plessy]

Le Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:56:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> 
>  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?

How about http://wiki.debian.org/ManojSrivastava ?

Have a nice day,

-- 
CharlesPlessy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Michal Čihař]

Hi

Dne Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:25:59 +0200
Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napsal(a):

> Looking at your packages, I've a question. I see one package per firmware
> without version number in the package name.
>   Do you think about a way to have different kernels that each requires
> different firmware versions (for the same hardware) ?
> It seems to me that this problem is not addressed by current firmware-*
> package (packages already in Debian and your new ones), unless it is
> expected that firmware packages will change their name. However, I think
> this is a problem we must take into account for long term support.

At least ipw2100 drivers changed firmware name if they required
different version, so I guess this is also used by others...

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: How to indicate the license of our contributions to wiki.debian.org.

[Franklin PIAT]

On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 15:03 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:56:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > 
> >  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?
> 
> How about http://wiki.debian.org/ManojSrivastava ?
> 
> Have a nice day,

Please, don't encourage people to put individual license on their
homepage, or any wiki page.
1. This make it impractical to merge pages.
2. This will cause multiple licenses to show up.
3. I don't think GPL is a good choice for documentation, especially
   for a wiki.
4. it's been open for 4 years, please wait a few more weeks.
We'll come back to that after Lenny is released (or a little bit
before).

I'm pleased to read that this problem matters to you (plural "you").

Franklin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Bastian Blank]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:07:52AM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> At least ipw2100 drivers changed firmware name if they required
> different version, so I guess this is also used by others...

If they need an incompatible one. Not necessarily if they just need a
newer one.

Bastian

-- 
Violence in reality is quite different from theory.
-- Spock, "The Cloud Minders", stardate 5818.4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]