On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 09:25:18AM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> So the only option for "Ben" ist, to send the corrected source back to
> the manufacturer and ask him to test and relicense it...
>
> The problem is, that certifying cost up to 40.000 Euro and re-certifying
> arround 10-15.000 E
* Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081109 09:31]:
> Now the original soucre is "worthless" and can be distributed WITH the
> firmware blob. The license for the source and the blob must say clearly
> that ONLY the blob is certified und permited to use on the device.
>
> If now there is a hac
Am 2008-11-08 00:20:52, schrieb Ben Finney:
> Are you saying that EU law makes the vendor liable *only* in the case
> where the copyright license to the firmware permits the recipient to
> modify and redistribute, but *does not* make the vendor liable if the
> license doesn't allow this?
It seems
Le vendredi 07 novembre 2008 à 00:48 +0100, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
> ??? -- I am willing to do this! It is EUROPEAN LAW which make
> HARDWARE manufacturer responsable if someone MODIFY Firmware and disturb
> public e.g. GSM networks...
Bullshit. You’ll have a hard time finding a cou
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am 2008-11-03 12:59:53, schrieb Gunnar Wolf:
> > So probably the end result won't be shipping raw Debian in your
> > product - As you are not willing to release the firmware, Debian
>
> ??? -- I am willing to do this! It is EUROPEAN LAW whi
Am 2008-11-03 12:59:53, schrieb Gunnar Wolf:
> Michelle Konzack dijo [Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:10:48AM +0100]:
> > Curently I am building a hardware where the parts cost arround 40US$ per
> > device (@10.000) and using the same microcontroller with a "big" FLASH
> > memory would mke this Hardware
Am 2008-10-30 09:35:32, schrieb Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo:
> A good solution would be to improve the free/libre software available in
> Debian, since you seem to claim that SDCC is an option as a development
> tool to this said micro-controller. Is it a 8051?
Yes, several of my projects use th
Michelle Konzack dijo [Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:10:48AM +0100]:
> Curently I am building a hardware where the parts cost arround 40US$ per
> device (@10.000) and using the same microcontroller with a "big" FLASH
> memory would mke this Hardware arround 5 US$ in final production more
> expensive
Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008 à 16:03 -0400, Lennart Sorensen a écrit :
> > Again: ARE you realy willing to pay at least
> > 10US$ or 8? more for the hardware?
>
> Absolutely. I know I may be a minority, but I do pay extra to buy high
> quality hardware rather than the cheapest crap I can fin
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:47:00PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> There are SDKs called "Builder" where you will have NEVER source code,
> even as Developer, since the "Builder" create an IMAGE which will be
> uploaded into the the SRAM of a Microcontroller (I have some 8051
> compat
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:10:48AM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Curently I am building a hardware where the parts cost arround 40US$ per
> device (@10.000) and using the same microcontroller with a "big" FLASH
> memory would mke this Hardware arround 5 US$ in final production more
> expens
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:23 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I have some experience with radios. The FCC requires all radios to be
> certified before they can be sold, and there is a requirement that you
> must not make a device that is easily modifiable to operate outside
> the limits put forth
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 17:34 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> So now as a Manufacturer I have the choice between
>
> 1) Use a huge NV/FLASH/EEPROM Memory which make the Hardware maybe
> 10-20 Euro more expensive and I will lost customers.
>
> 2) Use huge external SRAM (makes the Hardware exp
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 01:48 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
>
> Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
No, it's not part of Debian. No
I'll add my two cents.
I have some experience with radios. The FCC requires all radios to be
certified before they can be sold, and there is a requirement that you
must not make a device that is easily modifiable to operate outside
the limits put forth by the FCC. In this case, it would be illegal
Am 2008-10-30 17:49:40, schrieb Giacomo A. Catenazzi:
> But most of the firmwares are outside wireless communication.
Right, but they are some like the one from me.
> How many manufacturers was sued because users burn the monitors
> (it was very easy) or other hardwares (e.g. try with hdparam) ?
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-10-29 22:52:52, schrieb Thomas Bushnell BSG:
I am sure, my enterprise is not the only one wondering about such
requirement to let users modify firmware of sensibel hardware which CAN
destuct the whole computer since they have to leafe out some stuff to
Am 2008-10-29 22:52:52, schrieb Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> > I am sure, my enterprise is not the only one wondering about such
> > requirement to let users modify firmware of sensibel hardware which CAN
> > destuct the whole computer since they have to leafe out some stuff to
> > get it into
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
>
> Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
One way to resolve this dilemma is to realize t
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:58:12PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2008-10-27 17:01:50, schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> > Jeff Carr wrote:
> >
> > > But the opencore case is the easy case, hybrid chips don't even have
> > > source. The firmware blob is often generated when you fabricate the
> > > ch
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:40:03PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2008-10-28 09:33:07, schrieb Tristan Seligmann:
> > Again, assuming I'm not misspeaking, that form of the work is already
> > what we have.
>
> ACK ;-)
>
> Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
> Michelle Konzack
In whi
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:33:27PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2008-10-28 02:45:31, schrieb Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo:
> > If it's not clear by now, people are not arguing that hardware should
> > not be used if it is not free hardware (either it is feasible or not to
> > distribute or
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:42:56PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2008-10-29 00:39:40, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> > How exactly do you propose to load the firmware, if not through a JTAG
> > port? Back in the world of production hardware which Debian runs on,
> > ASICs tend to have power-on-res
On Wed,29.Oct.08, 22:11:27, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> I am not realy sure, 50.000 customers would accept hardware which cost
> 45 US$ instead of 40 US$ because there are 2-3 OSS frickler which want
> access to the source because they want to fix something.
>
> Do you would give the FIXES bac
Am Donnerstag, den 30.10.2008, 01:48 -0500 schrieb William Pitcock:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
>
> Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
"Thus, although non-fr
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
Does this mean that non-free should move to a third-party repo like
certain other repos out there
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:53 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> What does have the FIRMWARE to do with a DEVICE DRIVER?
For the DEVICE DRIVER to work, a FIRMWARE must be loaded on some
hardware, as you well know.
Debian has promised that the Debian distribution will only be free
software. Some of t
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 21:47 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> There are SDKs called "Builder" where you will have NEVER source code,
> even as Developer, since the "Builder" create an IMAGE which will be
> uploaded into the the SRAM of a Microcontroller (I have some 8051
> compatibles)
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:33 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> Anw what do you do with sourcode, for which there is not even a
> compiler
> availlable under Linux/BSD? And you HAV to buy a 8000 US$
> development
> suit from the chip manufacturer to build the firmware?
Free software is an iterat
Am 2008-10-28 10:00:31, schrieb Lennart Sorensen:
> Debian's policy is not insane. It is consistent. Any hardware maker
> that wants their hardware to work with free software could use an
> eeprom to store the firmware within the device, so that there is nothing
> non-free that has to be distribu
Am 2008-10-27 17:01:50, schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> Jeff Carr wrote:
>
> > But the opencore case is the easy case, hybrid chips don't even have
> > source. The firmware blob is often generated when you fabricate the
> > chip & changes with the physical board layout. You guys just don't
> > understan
Am 2008-10-29 00:39:40, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> How exactly do you propose to load the firmware, if not through a JTAG
> port? Back in the world of production hardware which Debian runs on,
> ASICs tend to have power-on-reset logic built-in...
Most PCI hardware has a very small bootloader which
Hi Jeff,
Am 2008-10-27 12:26:31, schrieb Jeff Carr:
> Some modern devices let the OS load this code
> into the chip then we are able to write fully GPL drivers for the
> device.
This sounds a little bit weird...
What does have the FIRMWARE to do with a DEVICE DRIVER?
The FIRMWARE is intend to
Am 2008-10-28 09:33:07, schrieb Tristan Seligmann:
> Again, assuming I'm not misspeaking, that form of the work is already
> what we have.
ACK ;-)
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GN
Am 2008-10-28 02:45:31, schrieb Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo:
> If it's not clear by now, people are not arguing that hardware should
> not be used if it is not free hardware (either it is feasible or not to
> distribute or exist source code). The matter is whether source for code
> that will not
Am 2008-10-28 12:41:31, schrieb Ben Finney:
> "Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Usually it's whatever the chip manufacturer provides.
;-)
> That doesn't seem to address my question. Here, ???the copyright
> holders??? means the copyright holders in the work under question; i.e.
> the wo
Am 2008-10-27 10:10:19, schrieb Neil Williams:
> > Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
> > you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
> > blob using the chip manufacturers tools.
>
> Are these "chip manufacturer tools" physical tools/ma
Hello Ben and *,
Am 2008-10-27 18:31:25, schrieb Ben Finney:
> If so, I don't get it either.
>
> If we use the ???preferred form of the work for making modifications to
> it??? definition of source code, what is the form that best meets that
> definition?
>
> What form of the work do the copyrig
[Teemu Likonen]
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> [...] We will never make the system require the use of a
> non-free component.
>
> The "system" doesn't require non-free components; it's just some users
> and their hardware that does. Debian cares about the "system".
D
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:01 AM, David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for the iwl3945 firmware, I do not know for sure whether it's written
> in C, assembler, or whatever else (I'm fairly certain it's NOT in some
> obscure 8-bit CPU or similar). Personally I wouldn't mind having
> the
Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This situation sucks. But we cannot claim to have a 100% free
> distribution while including sourceless firmware.
That is my main concern, yes.
> The obvious solution is to have official free and not-quite-official
> non-free variants of the installer.
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 18:01 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
[...]
> Please try to explain to a hardware manufacturer that free their
> hardware will only work with free software if they store their firmware
> on an eeprom, and they'll laugh you in the face (or possibly send you
> off to an asylum).
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 20:30 -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
[...]
> For example, lets say you have a pci device. If you don't load the
> firmware blob, the pins will just remain in an uninitialized state.
> That is; the chip default. Programming in the firmware blob will tell
> the chip how to work as a pc
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:01 -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
[...]
> In any case, all of this is theoretical; it's just doesn't make any
> sense to change the manufacturer firmware blob.
[...]
It can do. Firmware has bugs, and many hardware manufacturers have an
unfortunate habit of abandoning firmware af
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 20:17 -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
[...]
> If you did synthesize it, you might not have even "seen" it if you put
> it on a cpld. Then you might have just thought you were "programming"
> the chip.
You have to synthesise *from* something, be that Verilog or VHDL or
Handel-C.
> No
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:21, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> How can that be? (That is an ernest question)
>
> Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
> you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you genera
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo (2008-10-28 16:07 -0200) wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 06:01:45PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>> Throwing out the firmware doesn't help our users, it makes things
>> worse for our users. And our users are our number one priority.
>
> Is it not providing them the
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 06:01:45PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
[...]
> some cases, the binary blobs *is* the source code; I've spent more than
> enough time programming 8-bit directly from a machine-code monitor).
And many people write non-modular programs; use non-usual constructs; do
not comme
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:00:31AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:26:31PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> > True, I certainly feel like that at times with the opencores project
> > I've been trying to maintain.
> >
> > On the other hand, I sure know that I know a pile more t
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:29:58PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :)
Oh well. Some people write ugly perl code, some write ugly VHDL. Not
the language or tools fault, just bad programmers.
> Which is often not the case on cheap devices (often usb)
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:26:31PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> True, I certainly feel like that at times with the opencores project
> I've been trying to maintain.
>
> On the other hand, I sure know that I know a pile more than you do or
> we wouldn't be having this discussion :)
I have a different
* Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 16:38:41 +1100]:
> > Still, the firmware blob that you load into the chip isn't x86 code
> > for the host -- it's raw junk for the chip.
>
> That “raw junk” is, if I understand you correctly, instructions and
> data for controlling the behaviour of the
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 18:41, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Whoever the copyright holder of that work is (I read your remark
> > above to mean that the hardware manufacturer is that copyright
> > holder), there must be a "preferred form of
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:30:38PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> I guess it's really hard to explain because there is a massive gap; I
> can't teach you to be an electrical engineer or logician here :) I
You are assuming there is gap when there may be not.
> think if you had the time to go through an
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 18:41, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whoever the copyright holder of that work is (I read your remark above
> to mean that the hardware manufacturer is that copyright holder),
> there must be a "preferred form of the work for making modifications
> to it". What fo
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 00:31, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If we use the "preferred form of the work for making modifications
> > to it" definition of source code, what is the form that best meets
> > that definition?
> >
> > What form of
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 00:31, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we use the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to
> it" definition of source code, what is the form that best meets that
> definition?
>
> What form of the work do the copyright holders use to make changes t
Jeff Carr wrote:
> But the opencore case is the easy case, hybrid chips don't even have
> source. The firmware blob is often generated when you fabricate the
> chip & changes with the physical board layout. You guys just don't
> understand the issues here.
Please explain what the issues are, then
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:10, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to find out: Under what circumstances does the blob need to
> be modified and who gets to do that modification?
Probably only the hardware engineers.
> Are these "chip manufacturer tools" physical tools/machine
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 05:36, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> similar tools to modify the blob (even if it is only useful to do so on
>> a different board / with a different chipset)?
>
> Ish. Someone else should be able to use the same tools (barring
> development environment issues) b
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:26, Lennart Sorensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would expect anything on opencores.org to be perfectly readable VHDL
Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :)
> code, which is the prefered format for manipulating it. So what was
> your point again? B
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:35, Lennart Sorensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 06:38:53PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
>> Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
>> you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
>> blob using th
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 06:38:53PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
> you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
> blob using the chip manufacturers tools.
But you provide input to the tool, usually VHDL cod
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:46:14AM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> I'm willing to stake my reputation on betting you are _not_ a firmware
> engineer. Your are totally wrong if you think all firmware blobs can
> be replaced by human readable source.
>
> There is hardware, for which to function, will alwa
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:10:19AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:31 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
> > you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
> > blob using the chip manufac
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:31 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > If the vendor is able to send out a bit stream and (with or
> > without the owner's intervention) load that bit stream onto the
> > already-purchased hardware to modify its behaviour,
That qualifi
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:31 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 07:21, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Your argument boils down to: There is function that will
> > > never be supported by free software. Ann
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 07:21, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Your argument boils down to: There is function that will
> > never be supported by free software. Annoying people by asking
> > them to expose their function by free
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 07:21, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your argument boils down to: There is function that will never
> be supported by free software. Annoying people by asking them to expose
> their function by freeing the software just irritates them, so we
> shou
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:21, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can that be? (That is an ernest question)
Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
blob using the chip manufacturers too
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is hardware, for which to function, will always, for the
> lifetime of the equipment, require a firmware blob to operate. This
> will always be the case; there will never be a human readable version.
> It will never be possible to compile it (with non
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Your argument boils down to: There is function that will never
>> be supported by free software.
>
> This is an incorrect assumption too, there are several pieces of f
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your argument boils down to: There is function that will never
> be supported by free software.
This is an incorrect assumption too, there are several pieces of free
firmware already:
Motorola DSP56001 (assem
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 22:22, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It should not take us an indefinite time to release with
>> firmware blobs gone. I'll stake my reutation that the period involved
>> is not indefinite, and there is a up
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 22:22, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It should not take us an indefinite time to release with
> firmware blobs gone. I'll stake my reutation that the period involved
> is not indefinite, and there is a upper boundary to it.
>
>Testing out th
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:23:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
>
>> > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
>> > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these inclu
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:23:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
> > - 100% freeness
> > - cater best to t
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:02:30PM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Its a lot like exercise. Its not convenient and its not easy but in the long
> run its a good idea.
Nice pun! :)
--
Chris.
==
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understa
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:36:24AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Your lack of knowledge of Debian processes sucks (that means: you
> > annoy us (at least me) with your stance and the fanatic way you defend it
> > in public, pleas
Manoj Srivastava wrote the following on 23.10.2008 19:06
<- *snip* ->
> Look, I am not proposing we have a GR for every upload. I am
> saying that non-free bits in main are a bug. A serious bug. A RC
> bug. It is a big fucking deal. It comes to the core of what Debian is.
>
>
- "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
>
> > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
> >
> > - 100% freeness
> > - cater best to the inter
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
>
> - 100% freeness
> - cater best to the interests of our users
Frankly, this mindset infuriates me. It
On Wed, Oct 22 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> At some point, someone has to decide. Doing a vote for each is
> impractical. As our choice is _not_ silent, if someones (like usually
> the reporter who _sees_ such tags happen) disagree, he can raise a
> discussion. AFAICT it's what is happening cur
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:36:24AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> Every kernel upload changing the ABI goes through NEW.
>
> Your lack of knowledge of Debian processes sucks (that means: you
> annoy us (at least me) with your stance and the fanatic way you defend it
> in public, please stop th
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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 w
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:15:55PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
>
> > And you're comfortable with ftp-master ruling DFSG-iness through NEW
> > then ? I don't really see the difference.
>
> I would be uncomoftable with ftp-masters willfull
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> And you're comfortable with ftp-master ruling DFSG-iness through NEW
> then ? I don't really see the difference.
I would be uncomoftable with ftp-masters willfully allowing DFSG
violations in main without ratification from the project as a w
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 foun
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
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 re
90 matches
Mail list logo
