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

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:19:32 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> said: 

> 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.

	In other words, it is OK to ship non-free code in main, as
 long as there is no free implementation.  If you want Dewbian to stop
 shjipping non-free code, then you better write the free
 implementation -- not just any free implementation, mind you -- Free
 of bugs, and standards-compliant, too.

	Do you really think this is the stance of the project?

> If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck
> up.

	Right, how dare you imply that we care about shipping only
 free code in main. We are all about expedience, not about freedom.

	Dear me. I must have been mistaken all along.

>  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).

	Indeed. Some non free code is too important not to ship. Not
 shipping such non free code would be a major disservice to our users,
 and would lose Debian important market share, and we can't possibly
 let scruples stand in the way of market share, can we?

We have nowhere else to go... this is all we have. Margaret Mead
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: