Re: Interoperability among .deb implementations
On Jun 11, Jules Bean wrote:
> > 3. Some agreement that redistributed packages will not be gratuitously
> > repackaged or modified,
>
> Sign them, if that's important?
I don't think it's a signature thing. It's more a problem of
downloading packages, making minor tweaks to the package, and then
repackaging them as one's own. Maybe we'd call this a "one
maintainer" rule so we don't have gratuitous code forks.
For DFSG-free software, this "one maintainer" should ideally be a
Debian developer (and it should be in the main repository).
> > perhaps reinforced by an agreement that
> > DFSG-free packages will be integrated into Debian and that other
> > vendors will be able to provide non-voting Debian maintainers for
> > DFSG-free packages.
>
> Why non-voting? If the maintainers are willing to agree to the DFSG,
> then their work need not be incompatible with being full members.
I believe at least part of the problem with NM was a perceived issue
that we might admit new members to the project who would be a "fifth
column" and undermine the DFSG. I personally don't have a problem
with Corel or Stormix or NonFreeDebOrganization or whoever having
voting maintainers, but I can see there are elements of the project
who'd rather not see maintainers with divided loyalties.
I guess the key question is how much of a litmus test we (as a
project) expect the DFSG, etc., to be. If it's "I agree to be bound
by the DFSG for the purposes of my participation in the project", the
voting/non-voting problem goes away. Frankly, I'm not sure if this
was ever decided.
Chris
--
=============================================================================
| Chris Lawrence | You have a computer. Do you have Linux? |
| <quango@watervalley.net> | http://www.linux-m68k.org/index.html |
| | |
| Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Join the party that opposed the CDA |
| University of Mississippi | http://www.lp.org/ |
=============================================================================
Reply to: