Re: Bug#181028: cdrecord: promotes non-free software
> As said before, why not fixing SILO instead? You are the maintainer, I
> expect an answer now.
You have had an answer for as long as this argument has been around.
Note, this is not "fixing" SILO, since SILO is not broken. It uses the
correct booting procedure, else the CD's would not boot. It's just that
SILO requires that the first stage boot loader know the sector of the
second stage boot loader.
I am adrressing this as time permits, but that doesn't alleviate the
fact that there is nothing wrong with the patch as-is.
> > So, yeah, I do have some bad vibes toward upstream on this one. I don't
> > like the situation where Debian bows down to upstream on points where we
> > should be free to make our own decisions (changing software is a right
> > that the license provides us). Being threatened by upstream is beyond my
> > tolerance.
>
> Pissing of the upstream by making changes without telling him is not a
> good way go to. They have to deal with problems that our changes may
> create - many people contact upstream first and not the Debian
> maintainer.
Allowing the upstream to dictate how Debian handles its internal affairs
is also not ideal. It's a step into the wrong direction. No upstream
author should ever feel they can dictate what happens to their software
after they release it. It is after all free software - the very core of
which means it is open to changes outside the author's control.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: