Re: GnuTLS in Debian
On 12/25/2013 12:38 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2013-12-23 23:38:15 -0800:
>> On 12/24/2013 12:04 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>> This is self-inflicted damage, and I think it's slightly arrogant to
>>> pretend that Debian is the only organization which cares about ethics.
>>
>> For once, I agree with you Marco.
>>
>> On 12/24/2013 01:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> If it were to reverse position,
>>> those users who have been diligently adhering to the license and
>>> expending resources would be at a disadvantage to new users who
>>> won't have to deal with that. That may be a position a business
>>> can take, but as volunteer organization with no profit motive,
>>> I think Debian has to take more care
>>> to stay as close to the ethical center as possible.
>>
>> Are you saying that, just because we inflicted pain before, just for the
>> sake of being fair to everyone, that pain should stay? I must be wrong,
>> and didn't get it right... :/
>>
>
> Not so much that "because we inflicted pain before" but "because nothing
> has changed other than time".
Well, together with time, the thing that has changed, is that we're
seeing more and more cases that are annoying package maintainers, and
therefore, indirectly, our users.
> If we have gained some new insight then that
> may be enough reason to reverse position. Or maybe we're just tired of
> being the only ones actually trying. My point is, we made decisions for
> our users and we should not take a reversal lightly.
I think we've well passed the point where that old decision is doing
more bad than good to our users. Even if the licensing issue itself
didn't change, and that probably it made sense at some point in time, I
don't think it does anymore, especially seeing that almost no upstream
author cares about Debian's nit-picking on this particular issue. We're
just beating ourselves for no valid reason.
Cheers,
Thomas
Reply to: