Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- From: Raul Miller <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:05:17 -0400
- Message-id: <20040427210517.Q13880@links.magenta.com>
- In-reply-to: <20040426185336.GE20852@azure.humbug.org.au>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 04:53:36AM +1000
- References: <email@example.com> <20040426045609.GA2579@azure.humbug.org.au> <20040426095953.O13880@links.magenta.com> <20040426101609.P13880@links.magenta.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040426161500.GC17247@azure.humbug.org.au> <20040426134224.Y13880@links.magenta.com> <20040426185336.GE20852@azure.humbug.org.au>
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 04:53:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I started working through this list, but its sheer size is intimidating
-- I don't think I can come up with any point-by-point solution to all
these problems in the next week.
Here's my thoughts:
 We need to make sure we know who is active. Maybe we should have a
"show of hands" on who on the committee is actively reading this thread?
 I think the right course for the committee to take in this case is
offering advice. On the one side, I can offer my earlier suggestion
(posted to debian-vote):
... it might be worthwhile introducing a "Sarge Exception", making
an explicit grandfather clause applicable only to sarge, and earlier
distributions, so we can release the it. This is philosophically ugly,
but then some people (perhaps RMS) think the same of debian as a whole.
The language of that GR might run something like: In the past, we
have had some disagreements between ourselves about what it is we're
trying to do and what should go in a free distribution. We intend to
fix those issues, going forwards, however to release the version of
the distribution which we were about to release, it's going to have to
include some components which might have been acceptable under our old
social contract but which are definitely not acceptable under the new.
We resolve to distribute the "Sarge Distribution" with packages licensed
as they are currently licensed, even though these license conflict
with the updated social contract. We'll also be providing in "Sarge" a
document listing at least one such conflict for each of these packages.
Maybe there's some improvements that coud be made on that suggestion?
I've been looking for other alternatives, and if there are any good
ones I'm not seeing them.