On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I > > > had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately > > > expelled from the project. > > > If you were to follow debian-legal, you'd find that this sort of thing > > happens all the time. We regularly find stuff in the archive that > > shouldn't be there. It's usually a mistake. > > Er, I think there is a huge difference in significance here. Yes, quite. The thing is, the DMUP doesn't distinguish between them - so it's evidently not the set of rules used to determine what is and is not acceptable. > I really think the most serious problem with the DMUP is that section 3 is > labled 'Policies' not 'Guidlines'. Really, the document is ment to be: > "Don't do something stupid with Debian boxes that could get Debian or it's > sponsors in trouble. Here are some examples." I concur that this is what it's meant to say, and that would probably fix most (perhaps all) of the problems with it. However, note that the context is somebody wanting to add something to this section, as a hard rule. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature