* Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@debian.org) wrote: > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:22:48 -0500, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> said: > > Bringing in money, however it is done, does not mean you're > > for-profit or not-for-profit. Your concern about mirrors is valid > > and should be pursued and considered, so how about we do that > > instead of waving hands and saying what might happen. Indeed, it > > might make some sense to have a policy regarding what will be on > > master so that our mirrors understand what they're getting in to. > > This would likely involve such gems as "master is in the US and > > therefore the laws of the US are what govern what's on it and these > > laws may allow for content not legal in your country." I think this > > is actually implicit to some extent already, but it wouldn't hurt to > > have it spelled out. As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's > > technically possible to perhaps work around some of these issues by, > > say, having 'with ads' and 'without ads' directories and allowing > > the mirrors to decide if they're willing to help support SPI/Debian > > or not through the ads. > > What possible benefit accrues from the ads that would justify > this kind of effort? In this context all I see is a rahter negative > corrupting effect of money. I don't see it as all that much effort, I guess, but I do see it as something that we really should have *anyway* (the mirror policy, that is). I also don't feel that Debian will be corrupted by having money available to it, or perhaps at least not corrupted any more than it must already be (erm, we have it now...). Stpehen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature