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

Fwd: Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]



,--------------- Forwarded message (begin)

 Subject: Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
 From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:08:12 -0400
 Newsgroup: gmane.linux.debian.devel.project,gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal

 Colin Watson wrote:
 
 > It's good that we study and question their licensing decisions. However,
 > I think that in order for releases to be possible the release manager
 > must have the freedom to decide "this is still an improvement over what
 > we used to have"
 
 That is always OK, as long as it's not an excuse for putting off changes due
 to licensing problems forever.
 
 > and release anyway while the discussion is pending, in 
 > cases where the debate is over what Debian finds acceptable and not over
 > licence violations. Otherwise debian-legal has the entire project over a
 > barrel: we must be in a situation where every important component is
 > simultaneously not in question, and the mere existence of question in
 > any important component is sufficient to stop us releasing, even when we
 > haven't regressed.
 Nobody has suggested this.  As long as it's not an excuse to put off changes
 due to licensing problems forever.
 
 (The exception is non-distributability bugs.  Legally, Debian is in serious
 danger if copyrighted material which does not have clear permission to
 distribute is distributed, particularly if we know about it.  These
 *should* hold the entire project over a barrel.  Luckily they don't seem to
 come up *too* often.)
 
 > (Compare the policy on fails-to-build-from-source 
 > bugs: if it hasn't built on that architecture before, i.e. hasn't
 > regressed, then it isn't release-critical.)
 > 
 > The perfect is the enemy of the good.
 > 
 > The flames that issue forth every time someone dares to downgrade
 Well, duh, they *are* serious.  Isn't that what 'sarge-ignore' was invented
 for?
 
 > or 
 > suggest temporarily ignoring a "foo is non-free" bug that came from
 > -legal speak for themselves.
 Temporary is fine -- as long as it isn't an excuse to ignore it forever. 
 All too often, it *is*.
 
 -- 
 There are none so blind as those who will not see.

`--------------- Forwarded message (end)



Reply to: