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

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:49:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:31:30AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> > I agree wholeheartedly with you. Unless we are capable of _right_now_ strip
> > off all the non-DFSG software/firmware/data/you_name_it in a 3.0r3 release
> > we are better off releasing sarge right away. 
> If we really think we're in a problematic philosophical position by having
> woody on our servers, then we should drop it. If we make a commitment,
> we should do our best to keep it.

I'm just saying that now we are in the same situation with woody than with 
sarge (if it were released now). 

> > Obviously, releasing sarge now would only be to the benefit to our
> > users, which is also a requirement of our SC.
> If you're happy to violate the social contract's requirement that
> everything be free, there's no reason not to violate the requirement that
> we think of our users or the free software community, or anything else.

Emmm.. I didn't say that, no need to be harsh. I'm just saying that, if we 
are to intrepret the SC based on "everything free", we are already 
violating that, in both our mirrors and our currently distributed release.

> Is that the level of commitment to the social contract you're advocating?

I'm just trying to put things into perspective, not releasing sarge but 
keeping woody which has, at the very least, the same DFSG issues for 
documentation and firmware gets us nowhere. So, from my POV, we can either:

- acknowledge the problem and keep moving (release sarge) knowing that we
are making a best-effort to do a full DFSG-free audit of all components 
both within this release and in next releases.

- stop the release, stop distributing woody, close the mirrors and do an
audit of all components and don't release until everything is cleared out.

Select that one which you feel follows best our SC, they might be extremes, 
but I don't believe there's middle ground here.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: