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

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 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: