[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > By program I mean everything that we formerly required to be distributed
> > under the DFSG, 
> Huh? That's not a definition, especially since all this debate is about
> whether our previous formal requirements where different to our current
> ones. 

The easy option is to pass the buck: "Which pieces of software fall
into the category of program is a policy decision to be made by the
appropriate delegates of the DPL, under the normal procedures of the

(Obviously, if that option's taken, I'll just be delegating the decision
of the moment to the tech ctte anyway; and the usual checks and balances
of having things be able to be overridden by new delegates, by the
tech ctte, or by GR still apply too of course. The question is how the
definition of "program" can be changed or adapted to new scenarios --
only by 3:1 GR, by the delegates as part of doing their jobs, or some
other way)


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: