On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal and it would be good to rebut or resolve this.Well, and if you get no answer at all, what would you conclude ?
"oooh crap, I guess it's for me to fix this bug"
Well, it is debian-legal which is worried about the QPL, which ftp-masters have already accepted some 3-5 years back, at least in the ocaml case it was not by equivocation.
This goes back to the problem Branden mentioned, as we can't tell why ftpmasters did something.
If now the analysis has shifted, then so be it, but the burden is ondebian-legal to provide a analysis of good quality of why this change isdeemed necessary, and i have not really seen such an analysis yet.
I hope that we can do this together. I hope that an interim summary is posted soon which is more inclusive than your "reproach".
Ultimately, it may be necessary to try to overturn an ftpmaster decision, but that point is a long way off. We're not debian-amd64 ;-)
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast