On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 07:58:29PM +0100, Steffen Moeller wrote: > I am somewhat lost myself. Yes, I wanted to upload the Ubuntu approach of 2.3 > and then move towards the Debian approach for 2.4, but I have never uploaded > anything for 2.3 because of my uncertainty about it being in main or non-free. > Now 2.4 is out and there should only be a single 2.4 branch left. Ok. When I come back from vacation, I'll try to merge all my changes to the ubuntu branch in trunk, if they still apply. > > I don't agree that «multiverse» corresponds 100% to «non-free». I think > > there are several pieces of software in Debian main that are kept in > > Ubuntu multiverse. In any case, back when I started packaging torque and > > then joined the common effort, I looked torque's licence and couldn't > > find anything that could make it plain non-free. If my opinion counts, > > we should make our initial upload target main, and let the ftp team > > decide. We shouldn't go the non-free route just because we don't knw > > what they'll say. If the package is rejected, it's very easy to reupload > > with the changed sections. > The FTP team is only human. I think. We should not bring Debian into trouble > just because we could not decide for ourselves and the FTP team made an error > in judgement. In my (updated) mind, what is not clearly free is non-free. I agree with what Michael said: it's the ftp-master's job to decide. Again, I have looked at the licence and I really can't find anything non-free. The advertising clause is a pain in the ass, but as far as I know it is DFSG. I insist that we shouldn't drop this to non-free without an official ftp-master statement, be it an IRC comment, a reply to a mail discussing the topic, or via a REJECT message. On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > we should make our initial upload target main, and let the ftp team > > decide. We shouldn't go the non-free route just because we don't knw > > what they'll say. If the package is rejected, it's very easy to reupload > > with the changed sections. > It might be better to ask them directly for their opinion, instead of > just uploading the package ? I think we've done that. At least I've done it, via IRC and email, but I got nothing back. Jordi -- Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/ jordi@sindominio.net jordi@debian.org http://www.sindominio.net/ GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature