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

Re: Copyright issues GPL-PHP license

On Sun, 6 May 2007 13:46:21 -0300
"Alex Queiroz" <asandroq@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > This is a very sad opinion. Is Debian censoring programming languages
> > > now?
> >
> > Challenging whether some software would be an asset to Debian is not
> > cersorship by any definition of the word, but voicing an opinion. I'm glad
> > that that is possible in Debian.
> >
>      The complaining I was referrering to was the programming language
> used, not the quality of the software.

And my opinion is that the choice of programming language for nanoweb
inevitably led to an irrevocably poor quality of the software because
the programming language chosen has inherent weaknesses that are
publicly acknowledged and have been known for some time. This
particular package does not play to the undoubted strengths of PHP, it
could be vulnerable to an immense number of potential security issues,
not just because of the package itself but because of the underlying
weaknesses of the language.

That is not censorship, that is challenging the reasons why a package
was even considered in this manner. Not all free software is good

Why should Debian accept a package that is so clearly the result of
choosing the wrong language for the task? The risks are obvious, the
problems are obvious, the extra workload for the security team is truly
scary and I, for one, do not wish to go within a MILE of a package that
reeks of that much trouble.

Sponsoring isn't just about uploading, it is about putting your name to
a package - making a signed public statement that this DD considers
this package to be worth including in Debian. IMHO nanoweb does not
deserve such endorsement from me - I get the feeling that other
sponsors agree.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgphzqckUHZEY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: