Re: Notes from the DebConf Source Format BoF
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Notes from the DebConf Source Format BoF"):
> That's not the problem being discussed here. The signature is fine. The
> problem is that while Joey may think that his repository is completely
> DFSG-free, it's the current job of ftp-master to actually check that. For
> a complete repository, that's a lot of work. Should ftp-master just trust
> Joey that there's no non-DFSG code anywhere in history? Who should be
> trusted? We get into very murky ground here, which is much different than
> the current review process.
I would suggest that if we can solve the other problems, this can be
dealt with by saying that ftpmaster is expected to check that:
* The repository with full history is publicly available elsewhere
* The tip of the branch which will be in our archive is fine
If it should happen that the repository is unredistributable then
we'll remove it when this is pointed out.
We should have a policy about non-free but redistributable.
Personally I think this is in the same category as repackaging source
packages to remove RFCs: useless make-work. We are not helping
software freedom by making our own work more difficult because of a
largely entirely theoretical possibility that promotion of non-free
licences or code might be encouraged by our failure to redact their
existence out of even the history of our little fragment of the