[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 13:12, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz> 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.


Reply to: