On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:02:53 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> > On the other hand, "kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian
> > kernel team, based on the Linux kernel by Linus Torvalds and others"
> > seems to be accurate credit, doesn't it?
>
> It's an arguably accurate description, but strikes me as an arguably
> misleading credit.
I'm more and more puzzled.
Could you please phrase what you would consider an accurate (non
misleading) credit?
>
> > [...]
> > > I agree with that advice. Some licensors have drunk CC deeply and
> > > will not move, so I suggest that CC-sco is a possible compromise
> > > route until a fixed CC 3.x is finally published.
> >
> > Please do not tell me that we must compromise our principles while
> > waiting for things to get magically fixed.
>
> Depends what principle. I do not suggest compromising on the DFSG,
> but I do suggest compromising over exactly which licence to use to
> as the basis for meeting the DFSG.
Start from a troublesome license and patch it hard so that it is
`forced' to meet the DFSG?
I don't agree with this approach.
I would rather suggest: start from a clearly DFSG-free license and do
nothing else.
License proliferation is bad.
Disclaimer: I used the term "DFSG-free license" only for convenience
sake; I know that it's the piece of software, not the license, that can
comply with the DFSG or fail to do so.
>
> > I'm already deeply disappointed by the Debian project for taking
> > such decision with GR-2006-001... :-(((
>
> I think it remains to be seen which decision the project took.
The decision is clear enough to drop bug reports on that basis.
I mean: there are bugs that have already been marked as "done" because
of GR-2006-001.
This sounds like "This bug is not a bug".
This is what disappoints me more: I'm losing my belief that the Debian
project is willing to actually fix the important bugs that are
reported... :-(((
I have so far spent a non-negligible amount of time in analysing
licenses, detecting issues and reporting bugs, trying to do my little
part to help enhancing Debian: I'm not sure I will go on likewise in the
future, with a GR that basically said "You wasted your time: we won't
consider those bugs as actual bugs to be fixed" and the risk that other
serious issues are magically considered non-issues by GR, just because
the project feels unconfortable with them (or for whatever other
unexplained reason)...
> The
> position statement issued was vague at best, contradictory at worst,
> and has caused ripples which I think will provoke another vote.
I don't count on another vote to happen. The majority expressed their
opinion: I doubt many people would vote differently in another round.
At least, not soon...
This means that etch will most probably be out *tainted* by non-free
packages in main (as any previous stable release was), but (and this is
the novelty!) this situation won't be regarded as a bug to be fixed
anymore... :-(((
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpL_eTy6pA8p.pgp
Description: PGP signature