Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:39:17 -0800, Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> said:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
>> Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> writes:
>>
>>> I'm saying debian-legal is irrelevant to this bug mass filing.
>>> Brian proposed to submit these bugs on the grounds that there is a
>>> consensus in debian-legal that the DFSG is non-free. I say that
>>> is not for debian-legal to decide.
>>
>> Good grief; it's reasonable to file a bug merely because I in my
>> own judgment think a package has a bug, and this applies to license
>> bugs as much as technical bugs.
> These are bugs that may be prompted closed by a maintainer, because
> they are not clearly bugs at all. That is exactly the sort of mass
> filing that should *not* happen.
>> I have already said that I think Brian should wait on filing GFDL
>> bugs until after the release of sarge, because it is only then that
>> the Social Contract changes swing into effect.
> I disagree. It is not clear to me these would suddenly become bugs
> after sarge's release.
I am not sure how I can help with that. However, no one seems
to be arguing that the GFDL meets the requirements of the DFSG. The
SC shal require everything in main to do so post sarge. Ergo, any
material in main that does not meet the DFSG needs be removed --
which seems to be a working definition of a release critical bug
(release critical for etch).
Umm, seems clear as crystal to me.
manoj
--
I don't kill flies, but I like to mess with their minds. I hold them above
globes. They freak out and yell "Whooa, I'm *way* too high." -- Bruce Baum
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: