[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft new DFSG

On 30-Nov-98, 00:57 (CST), Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@worldvisions.ca> wrote: 
> Typically, common sense will help us decide borderline issues.  It's been a
> serious Debian fallacy lately that absolutely everything we do has to be
> written down in legalese.  

Yes. This could be the thing that eventually kills us.

> We don't need a policy that says "Programs that mail some random
> user your /etc/shadow file will not be allowed in the distribution."
> We simply need to think for a moment when it comes up and say "Hey,
> that's a malicious package, and we shouldn't allow it."

Absolutely. However, several people said or implied that DFSG compliance
was the *sole* determiner whether or not a package would be accepted
into the distribution. Others pointed out that should not be true, that
we need the ability to apply "common sense" (there's an oxymoron for
you) as well when accepting a package. The problem, of course, is the
borderline cases. We need to lean heavily towards the acceptance side of
the border.


Reply to: