On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:32:11AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> However, I don't want to use this example to justify further
> violations; I'm also not happy that some people think the current GFDL
> discussion might imply that all issues about non-freeness can be
> treated as "sarge-ignore". This is certainly not the case!
Can you explain what the policy is for which non-freeness issues *will*
be regarded as "sarge-ignore"?
#199810, #199814, #199815, #199816, #199818 are all tagged that way and
have nothing to do with the GNU FDL, for example.[1]
And #181493 should probably be tagged sarge-ignore because that's how
the Release Manager feels about it, but it was closed instead, and the
bug submitter banned from using the Debian BTS's control interface.
At the same time, #211765 is apparently too important to be ignored.
It is difficult, from these data, to discern what exactly the policy for
"sarge-ignore" and licensing issues is.
[1] People looking up those bugs should read the bug logs in full before
leaping to conclusions about who "filed" them.
--
G. Branden Robinson | No executive devotes much effort to
Debian GNU/Linux | proving himself wrong.
branden@debian.org | -- Laurence J. Peter
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature