Re: The new Social Contract and releasing Sarge
Jamin W. Collins <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:46:06AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
[...]
>> For those packages where the problem is the GFDL (which from what I
>> gather seems to be a reasonable chink of them) I'd say that the work
>> Mako and others are doing with the FSF is constructive work on
>> resolving the issue. You may question the results but I don't think
>> it's fair to say the problem is being completely ignored.
> Unless the authors of these packages were directly involved in the
> attempts to correct these issues, yes they were being ignored. Granted
> the talks with the FSF _may_ result in a change to the GFDL that makes
> it DFSG free. However, in the meantime the problem continues to exist
> in our archives. The developers could have made the necessary changes
> to their package (construction or location) to resolve the problem and
> then reverted those changes later. Would this have required time, sure.
> Did they have this time, sure.
Would it necessarily have been sensible? No.
The course of action most of agreed on was to try to make the
conditions of the private talks with the FSF as good as possible by
stopping the fruitless flamefests on debian-legal, not making Manoj's
platform official and refrain from other stuff that would generate
heat.
cu andreas
--
NMUs aren't an insult, they're not an attack, and they're
not something to avoid or be ashamed of.
Anthony Towns in 2004-02 on debian-devel
Reply to: