Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:39:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> [2008.10.24.1717 +0200]:
> > I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> > for resolving DFSG violations:
>
> I would generally second this, but I wish we would separate the two
> issues: first establish whether and how we want to deal with
> DFSG-non-free, and second decide whether we want to make (yet
> another) exception for lenny.
On one hand, I don't think an option that doesn't allow some kind of exception
for Lenny is likely to be accepted, taking into account that we're so close to
release (in fact I haven't made a clear decision myself).
On the other, if we implement the proposed mechanism for dealing with DFSG
violations, work will start in their enforcement, and at that point making
an exception would have to revert that to get DFSG-infringing packages back
to main. It is much simpler that, for those who would support my proposed
reform but still want Lenny to be an exception, they have an option that
allows this exception and post-pones the reform at the same time.
> In fact, I'd word it such that the
> affirmative would mean we stick to our promise we made for sarge,
> which we already violated for etch, and do *not* release lenny with
> non-free stuff.
Manoj wrote an option along these lines (another reply in this thread). I
have some concerns with that one, but I'm willing to incorporate it if after
reading my reply you're still interested in it (please have a look).
--
Robert Millan
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."
Reply to: