On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun > > RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold up the > > release. > > When did we decide that release dates were more important than the DFSG? We didn't. At least not officially. But to 'some' of us, it does matter. </sarcastic> In any case, the solution is easy (as I said in my mail, in the part you conveniently snipped away): stop the bickering, get your hands out of their sleeves, and write that RPC code. Free of bugs, and standards-compliant, mind you. If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. We can't ship without RPC in glibc (that would be a severe disservice to our users, as it would break NFS, parts of Gnome (FAM, for instance, on which parts of Gnome depend, uses RPC), and most likely some other major parts of our distribution as well; and per the Social Contract, our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). Thanks. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Attachment:
pgpOWn6KYr3ae.pgp
Description: PGP signature