Bug#727708: Init systems: arguments for the CTTE
* Josselin Mouette (joss@debian.org) [131028 10:39]:
> As a side note, I think upstart’s CLA dismisses it as software
> of choice for our core system.
> I know it’s not the only important piece of software in Debian
> with a CLA. I still stand on this point. I have experienced a
> real world CUPS nightmare because of Apple’s CLA, and I would be
> all for ditching CUPS as default too if we had a decent
> alternative.
It is important for us that we can identify and fix bugs in our
packages, and that we could forward bug reports to upstream and have a
good working relationship with them (and allow them to pull our
patches).
However, lots of packages in Debian require copyright assignments to
bring patches upstream. This includes as central packages as gcc. One
could argue that the assignment policies between Ubuntu and FSF are
different enough that it matters. On the other hand, I don't see why
this is a blocker for us.
The upstart maintainers in Debian will work on bug reports and
proposed patches even without copyright assignment (as do the gcc
maintainers), and that is what is required for us. Of course I would
prefer if the copyright assignment policy would be changed, but that's
something else.
So, IMHO this topic is not a blocker for upstart (which doesn't on the
other hand automatically imply upstart is the right answer - this
depends on other questions and answers within this discussion).
Andi
Reply to: