Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think that
> removing SUNRPC support (and with it NIS, NFS and more) is a suitable
> choice (unless we want to lose all users who haven't switched yet to
I have my doubts that the problem with glibc is so difficult as you present
it. It's probably just a matter of contacting the right person at Sun, or
perhaps integrating another library from one of the *BSD.
In any case, if it really *is* as difficult as you present it, I trust that
you'll have no problem convincing the developers that an exception should be
granted for this particular package, at least for Lenny.
Two of the options I proposed contemplate an exception for firmware blobs in
Linux. I didn't include other situations simply because I reused the same
text from the Etch GR. Has something changed from Etch that would justify
making this different?
What does everyone else think about modifiing the exception texts to cover
> The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move
> glibc to non-free (and with it, half of the archive to contrib)? It
> would be faster to move everything to non-free.
Neither the SC nor my proposed text enforce moving stuff to contrib, and I
don't think anyone would want to do it anyway, so this sounds like a moot
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."