On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:17:12PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2009.11.18.2201 +0100]: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 05:09:56PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > > > Yes, the security FAQ addresses the non-free issue. This doesn't > > > make the situation any more desirable. At least not for me. > > But that's not what you expressed in your mail, which could have > > been (and probably was) taken as an authoritative statement on > > behalf of the project. > Those who disagree can make similarly "authoritative" statements in > the opposite direction. No, then we would have *two* people misrepresenting themselves as speaking on behalf of the project, further confusing and frustrating outsiders who are trying to get a straight answer from us. The fix is to not put words in the project's mouth to begin with. There's nothing wrong with asking non-Debian folks who've contacted our lists to take particular viewpoints into consideration, or explaining our actual policies. But asserting that things are requirements when they actually aren't is not ok. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature