On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:32:11AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:However, I don't want to use this example to justify further violations; I'm also not happy that some people think the current GFDL discussion might imply that all issues about non-freeness can be treated as "sarge-ignore". This is certainly not the case!Can you explain what the policy is for which non-freeness issues *will* be regarded as "sarge-ignore"?
For example, a sensible and well-founded policy would be:If it is expected that the non-freeness issue will be resolved purely by the upstream author(s) making licensing changes and/or clarifications, but that this might take longer than the time to release sarge -- then the bug may be tagged "sarge-ignore", because the package is going to be free, even if it isn't right now. However, if the package is not freely distributable, the bug may not be tagged "sarge-ignore" in any case.
This obviously isn't the policy currently being used. Unfortunately.