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

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:52:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >         I think that we should not just assume that the developers
> >  think that violating the DFSG is acceptable just to release a new
> >  version.
> Sure, but we shouldn't assume the contrary either

What, in your view, would allow such an assumption? I'd have thought
an explicit agreement to follow the social contract would be *exactly*
what's required to allow assumption that the agreement will be

> I'm quite sure the answer would be «yes», but here I'm entering
> myself the guesswork terrain which permeates this thread.

I don't see how claims of “guesswork” can be raised for assuming
that an explicit agreement remains in place unless explicitly

 \                “Room service? Send up a larger room.” —Groucho Marx |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: