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

Re: GPL-3 & openssl: provide a -nossl variant for a library



On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 12:46 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On 23 October 2014 04:03, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>         It's usually more immediately useful to just
>         upload the package with an explanation of the issues in
>         debian/copyright
>         and see what the ftp-master team says.
> 
> 
> This is probably getting off-track, however I have a package that has
> been stuck in NEW for over a month because ftp-master won't give
> feedback on what they see as a legal issue with my package. I
> disagreed with their verdict, gave good reasons, indicated that
> another package already in Debian would have the same issues, and got
> no response.

Yeah, that's been my experience too.  I waited a week for a reply, but
none was forthcoming.  I took that as a "no".  They are busy people
after all, and probably don't have time to engage in what could be long
discussions.  Particularly now when everyone is rushing to get in before
the freeze.

I wasn't happy at the time, but in retrospect it seems like a reasonable
process to me.  I assume they are consistent as they can be, so their
decisions reflect Debian's current consensus (written or otherwise) on
what is allowed into Debian.  If you disagree strongly enough to want a
debate that changes it, that debate should be held here on debian-devel
where everyone can participate.

You don't need a debate or a reply to reach a compromise - just
re-submit with your compromises.  It has the advantage of forcing them
to give you an answer :D.  If you aren't prepared to compromise, either
have the debate or drop the package.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: