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

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

* Branden Robinson (branden@debian.org) [030908 18:05]:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release
> > name stable is, release name in []):
> >     now         Oct 03      Dez 03       Oct 04
> > 1   sun[woody]  sun[woody]  sun[sarge]   sun[sarge+1]
> > 2   sun[woody]  sun[woody]  sun[sarge]   new[sarge+1]
> > 3   sun[woody]  sun[woody]  sun[woody]   new[sarge]
> > 4   sun[woody]  sun[woody]  none[sarge]  new[sarge+1]
> > 5   sun[woody]  none[woody] none[sarge]  new[sarge+1]

> Your analysis presumes that the act of releasing is not meaningful.

My analysis just says what a user gets when using debian stable main.

I count what actually happens. Not what code name is shown.

> If we make a release containing this non-DFSG-free code at any point
> after our awareness of this fact has been established, then we are
> *knowingly* violating clause one of the Social Contract, instead of
> unknowingly violating it.
> I regard that as a significant distinction.  I guess you don't.

I do make this destinction. But the discussed question is not: Are we
going to release sarge now, but without Sun RPC?

But we discuss: Are we delaying sarge for a long time periode so that
there can be other RPC-code included in sarge. And I wish that we just
release twice instead of delaying sarge. Our users would get the free
code as fast as with only releasing once, but have the advantages of
sarge earlier.

Even if we cannot agree, I hope that you admit that I don't want to
compromise the freeness of Debian. But that we're measuring "freeness" on
different occasions: I just don't measure it only on the date doing the
release, but what a users gets on any day with software from stable/main.

> In other news, Manoj Srivastava has pointed out that an alternative
> implementation of RPC, DCE RPC, has been released under the LGPL.  He
> knows more about its feature set than I do, though, so I'll let him
> speak to that.

If there is a implementation available that can be implemented in the
release time for sarge, that would be great news.

   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Reply to: