Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?
Stefano Zacchiroli <email@example.com> 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 |