Re: Lottery NEW queue (Re: Are libraries with bumped SONAME subject of inspection of ftpmaster or not
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
> I just don't think the solution is to ignore copyright or licensing
> statements.
That's not the goal. The question, which keeps being raised in part
because I don't think it's gotten a good answer, is what the basis is for
treating copyright and licensing bugs differently than any other bug in
Debian?
The need for pre-screening was obvious when we had export control issues,
but my understanding is that those have gone away. Are we working from
legal advice telling us that this pre-screening is required for some legal
purpose? If so, is it effective for the legal purpose at which it is
aimed? Is this system left over from old advice? Have we checked our
assumptions recently?
NEW processing is a lot of friction for the project as a whole and a lot
of work for the ftp team. If we were able to do less work at the cost of
a minimal increase in bugs, or at the cost of handling bugs a bit
differently, maybe that would be a good thing?
In other words, it's unclear what requirements we're attempting to meet
and what the basis of those requirements is, which makes it hard to have a
conversation about whether the current design is the best design for the
problem we're trying to solve.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: