Re: Leadership, effects on Debian and open source community
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 12:20:28PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > This is right if the only merit to arguments against tossing the
> > > advertising clause is that we'll discriminate against packages whose
> > > authors haven't had sufficient time to consider the new DFSG.
> > "The BSD advertising clause is not free software. Apache? That's just too
> > important, we had to make an exception for it." NO.
> Amen! Doesn't this seem hypocrytical to everyone?!
Of course it does.
> BTW, I have a question. I understand that new maintainers are called up and
> quizzed to make sure they understand the DFSG, and that they agree with it.
> I came into debian before this was instituted, but I could pass that test.
> I will never be able to agree with DFSG2 if it contains timeouts and
> exceptions. Do I have to agree with it to continue as a debian developer, or
> will I be forced to resign from the project if it becomes official? I've
> very concerned about this. I think any developer who disagrees with these
> features of the DFSG2 should be as well.
Without using cutoff dates in a new DFSG, we are unable to change it
in a way that would exclude packages already in main. Otherwise, we
need to drop immediately non-complying packages that are in it.
Dropping packages such as TeX and apache would be chaotic for a Debian
release because it would diminish its usefulness.
So, do we think that we need to change DFSG?