Re: Bug#385115: Sorry, no more RC bugs for non-free data in main (was: Bug#385115: chromium-data: Unclear license for some files)
<posted & mailed>
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> In this case, I see one rather obvious issue (there may be others):
>> Steve Langasek has said, in essence
>> "When A says X, and we have no evidence to the contrary,
>> we believe A".
>> Your objection, in essence seems to be
>> "We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
>> is true."
>> It seems to me that both of these statements are reasonable,
>> and that neither refutes the other.
> The latter implies that all packages should have RC bugs on them because
> we should not believe that any of the licenses and copyrights are what
> says they are. How is that reasonable?
Here was the standard I always used. I assume A is telling the truth
-- until I find out that he was wrong about one thing in his package.
As in, the clearly copyrighted and misappropriated sound file.
Then I stop assuming that he's done the right thing with the other similar
As in, the other sound files.
I think that that was what the bug submitter was doing. If upstream
screwed up once, they're likely to have screwed up repeatedly in the
same way. (This seems to be the case with legal issues, anyway.)
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...