Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 13:12, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > [message BCCed to aj]
> > >
> > > I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the
> > > DFSG: <http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt>
> > >
> > > Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
> > > and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This
> > > will likely become a requirement post-sarge.
> >
> > Why can't the offending packages just be moved to non-free? It isn't
> > like there hasn't been enough warning.
>
> I would guess that's because we haven't committed to a decision yet.
> :-(
I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that
has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on
the glibc mailing list:
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2003/debian-glibc-200308/msg00160.html>
I in no way support any claims that clear majority agreement has not
been reached. So in this respect sarge_rc_policy.txt should at least
read: "This will become a requirement post-sarge."
> > > Given the aggressive (and endearingly optimistic) timetable of releasing
> > > Sarge this December[0!] I support this pragmatic decision.
> >
> > Pragmatism is not the defining principle of the DFSG.
>
> With you 100%.
It's a timing issue. Clear consensus has only occurred very recently. Do
people want to see FTP uploads being rejected right this minute? The
forthcoming release of Sarge gives everyone a clear and historical cut
off date for implementing the consensus and gives archive maintainers a
clear date for strictly enforcing policy.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: