Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:24:51 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> said:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> ... (GR2004-004 didn't make any sense at all, nor does it make any
>> sense that Sarge can ship with non-free documentation, and at the
>> time I found the posts of the RM on the topic to make no sense at
>> all, but I was satisfied with the results of GR2004-003 and am able
>> to bear the strangeness of GR2004-004 for now, since it'll expire
>> on its own.)
>>
>> (And if people really are voting for a GR after only reading the
>> title, I'd be even more disappointed, but I just don't believe
>> that.)
> It's funny that out of the five people seconding GR2004-003, the
> first three did either second or even propose one of the first two
> suggestions in GR2004-004.
Right, the release sarge while we fix up the non-free stuff in
the distribution. That is the pragmatic solution, Sarge was way
overdue, and since we had been shipping non-free bits in Debian for a
bit anyway, there is something to be said about releasing a something
with stuff in it that we consider non-free, and then get our act
together later.
> If even the Debian developers seconding a GR are supporting changes
> to the result of this GR only one month later...
I guess English is not your first language, eh? That is the
more charitable explanation for such a major lack of judgement in
trying to judge motivations of" these folks. They wanted to release Sarge, flawed though it is, not rescind the changes made.
>> In any event, all of this is irrelevant: if people really think
>> that non-free documentation should be allowed in Debian, propose a
>> GR to allow it. Nothing short of that will make it so. If people
>> really think they were "tricked", fine--fix it with another GR.
>> Unless and until that happens, Debian's position is very clear.
> In GR2004-004, Proposal D to revert GR2004-003 did get a 2.3:1
> majority by the developers over the proposal to keep the changes of
> GR2004-003. That's a pretty clear statement.
And was beaten by most other proposals. I guess it got some
support from the -release-sarge-at-any-cost crowd, I think.
Hell, people would have preferred to apolgize for Sarge not
following the social contract rather than rescind the changes.
======================================================================
"Put the recent changes made in the social contract in abeyance for a
fixed time period"
Beats
"Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social
contract."
By 200 - 160 = 40
"Puts the recent changes made in the social contract in abeyance for
the next release of Debian."
Beats
"Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social
contract."
By 257 - 122 = 135
"Puts in an apology for the current release, code named sarge, for
not following the social contract"
Beats
"Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social
contract."
By 180 -174 = 6
"Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social
contract."
Beats
"Creates a foundation document to provide guidelines for handling
changes in foundation documents."
By 181 - 179 = 2
"Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social
contract."
Beats
"Reaffirm the current social contract, and not compromise on future
releases"
By 181 - 179 = 123
"Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social
contract."
Beats
Further Discussion
By 255 - 110 = 145
======================================================================
Indeed, option D only beat out Option E by 2 votes. So, since
you have problems interpreting the results, here is a cluebat:
> The nice thing about 3:1 majorities is, that once you've tricked
> something as "Editorial amendments" into it, a 25% minority is
> enough to block reverting it...
How much credence should I lend to the views of people who
vote for a change to a foundation document based on just the title,
and do not read the actual change that was sent to their mail boxes
at least thrice?
"Oh, I can't be bothered to read (or I can't read), and I
screwed up, so give me another chance"? Why should that not read "I
am too apathetic to read ballots sent to me but I voted anyway, so
please remove my key from the Debian key ring?
manoj
--
broad-mindedness, n: The result of flattening high-mindedness out.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: