Re: Lottery NEW queue (Re: Are libraries with bumped SONAME subject of inspection of ftpmaster or not
Hi Russ,
> > 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?
Sorry to barge in (not being a Debian dev): Having seen this
discussion go back and forth on the topic, I agree that this is the
question. However, after all these mails - including yours - I'm left
with: Posing the question is one thing, but getting it answered is
another. Is there anybody specifically more likely to have an answer
here than anybody else? And if so, is that person/group involved in
this discussion now? If not, shouldn't they be made aware of it?
> 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.
--
Bye,
Erik.
Reply to: