Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 13:12, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Walter Landry <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Adam Warner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > [message BCCed to aj]
> > >
> > > I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the
> > > DFSG: <http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt>
> > >
> > > Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
> > > and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This
> > > will likely become a requirement post-sarge.
> > Why can't the offending packages just be moved to non-free? It isn't
> > like there hasn't been enough warning.
> I would guess that's because we haven't committed to a decision yet.
I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that
has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on
the glibc mailing list:
I in no way support any claims that clear majority agreement has not
been reached. So in this respect sarge_rc_policy.txt should at least
read: "This will become a requirement post-sarge."
> > > Given the aggressive (and endearingly optimistic) timetable of releasing
> > > Sarge this December[0!] I support this pragmatic decision.
> > Pragmatism is not the defining principle of the DFSG.
> With you 100%.
It's a timing issue. Clear consensus has only occurred very recently. Do
people want to see FTP uploads being rejected right this minute? The
forthcoming release of Sarge gives everyone a clear and historical cut
off date for implementing the consensus and gives archive maintainers a
clear date for strictly enforcing policy.