Re: Damage-control GR and XFree86 non-freedom

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Anthony Towns wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 12:26:31AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Is it known whether the sarge-ignore status of
>> #211765: xfree86: material under GLX Public License and SGI Free
>>          Software License B is not DFSG-free
>> is affected by the current situation? It is not clear from the bug
>> logs whether the sarge-ignore tag is due to an ordinary "we don't have
>> time to fix this" decision, or because the RM's interpretation of the
>> old SC allowed exempting X drivers on general principles?
> 
> It's there because the issue's being worked on, is (or was considered)
> unlikely to be resolved for sarge, and doesn't seem important to be
> fixed for sarge.

> No doubt another example of my hypocrisy and lust for
> non-free software or whatever.

Well, why do you think that the Social Contract amendment changes
appropriate behavior for the *other* sarge-ignore cases and not for this
one? 

If the only reason for the other sarge-ignore cases was that the Social
Contract allowed wiggle-room, how was this justified (it's clearly
programs)?

If these practical reasons ("the issue's being worked on, is (or was
considered) unlikely to be resolved for sarge, and doesn't seem important
to be fixed for sarge") are good reasons, why don't they apply to the other
sarge-ignore cases without an extra GR (they seem to apply just as well)?

One good answer to any of these questions would do wonders to refute my
claim of hypocrisy.  :-P

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.