Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
> > Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> > to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
> We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even reject)
> software without reason.
We are obligated to serve the interests of our users and free software.
This is *no* obligation to accept all free software into the archive.
Even though ftp-master appears to follow the policy that any software
which is free, minimally usable, and policy-compliant is allowed in, it is
their *choice* to implement this policy (probably because it's the path of
least resistance), not an obligation imposed by the social contract.
> I doubt that the test du jour can serve as an adequate foundation for
> removal, especially if the failure of the test can not be tracked back
> to a DFSG violation.
If "the mplayer upstream developers are controlled by evil alien
cephalopods" is a procedurally valid reason to keep a package out of
Debian, than so is the Chinese dissident test.
As for package removals, it is always in the hands of the ftp-masters to
act on a removal request (or not). The only criterion that matters is
whether the ftp-masters are persuaded that removal is the right thing to
do.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: