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

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

> Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
> or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
> then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal
> with the copyright holders to relicense (and mesa has made it, proof
> that it's possible, but it needed like 2 or 3 releases of Debian to do
> so !), the Release team acknowledge that progress has been made, and
> tags the bugs $suite-ignore.

        This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
 delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made
 to violate a foundation document in our release.  Just like an
 individual developer does not have a right to decide to violate the
 DFSG in their work, I think the release team, which prepares the
 release, can do so unilaterally either (I did not vote for Bush).

        This is why my contention has been that the developer body, as a
 whole, has to be brought into the decision loop, like they have
 for the last two releases, and  make sure we, as a project, stand
 behind the decision, not just a few hapless RMs.

        So, I would like to see an option on the ballot that sates that
 we will release Lenny with known DFSG violations, we believe in the SC,
 but we also have to respect the needs of users, and we think progress
 is being made towards ensuring that the needs of our users can be met
 with free software in the future. I just do not think this is within
 delegate or individual developer powers.


VMS must die!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: