On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:51:16AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > Actually, I haven't seen anyone citing the following part of policy > > 2.2.1: "None of the packages in the main archive area require software > > outside of that area to function." > > > > If we agree that "functioning software" does more than print an error or > > a usage note, this part makes it rather clear where free client software > > to non-free server software belongs. > > It also would apply to anything where the server isn't packaged (in > main)—whether or not a free server exists.. Yup. > The plain wording of Policy requires that the server (if it's required > for the client to operate) not only be free, but also be packaged in > main. Or, instead, the way some people read it requires that. > That clearly doesn't match historical or current practice. Yup. > Policy is not the Social Contract, Policy is not the Constitution. Policy > can be relatively easily changed and is supposed to largely document actual > practices. So really, Policy needs to be amended. And attempting to > language-lawyer Policy like this is pointless. I don't it *needs* to be amended as there is no data that the current policy language cause problems. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature