On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 09:41:06PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> You'd rather have a quantitative rule, and the ability to occasionally
> say "Yes, it violates the numerical limits, but it's not abuse, and
> we're going to accept it." (Again, that's how I understand your
> position.) But this ends up being as open to flame wars and nitpicking
> as the other way, at least once the first exception is made ("but you
> made an exception for foo, so why are you trying to censor me??!??!").
It's easier to put stuff in than take stuff out. People will whine all
the louder if we decide retroactively that their package isn't free
enough for main.
> I'd rather admit up front that it was judgement thing.
That's right. My quantitative policy will, hopefully, force people to
look at what they're packaging. Some of them might even manage to use
judgement before saying "GNU FDL! Good for main! <upload>".
Moreover, I'd like this policy, if adopted, to be known to developers
generally, and well-publicized, so that people don't think the archive
maintainers are exercising some mysterious veto power when someone
blindly uploads a GNU FDL-licensed package which abuses Invariant
Sections or even consists entirely of them.
--
G. Branden Robinson | You could wire up a dead rat to a
Debian GNU/Linux | DIMM socket and the PC BIOS memory
branden@debian.org | test would pass it just fine.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Ethan Benson
Attachment:
pgpTJCK03jKH9.pgp
Description: PGP signature