Re: Proposal G
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004, Frank Küster wrote:
> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> wrote:
> Do you think the contents of the link should be cited, instead of
> giving only the URL, or what are you missing?
So state that the RM is directed to use the following requirements for
determining which packages are to be allowed in main for the upcomming
Debian release, currently codenamed Sarge:
Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and
in the source (including the .orig.tar.gz)
Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This
will likely become a requirement post-sarge.
An exception exists for "firmware" - that is code that
will be uploaded to a hardware device as part of making it
functional. This may be distributed in main even without source
or modifications being allowed; but you must be careful not to
violate the GPL by incorporating it into a GPLed program. This
generally means using the hotplug request_firmware() interface
to load the firmware from userspace. The firmware does not need
to be moved into a separate package, however.
Everything in non-free must be distributable by Debian.[1]
rather than beating about the bush.
> Therefore, if you say "this resolution seems to conflict with the
> SC", this isn't an argument against the wording of the GR, whether
> it is "allowed" in the limits of our constitution and the like
You're misunderstanding me. I have no problem with a GR changing the
SC, in principle. I have a problem with a GR that conflicts with the
SC *without* changing the SC.
Doing as this proposal would do breeds conflict, especially as the SC,
a foundation document, should state clearly and precisely what Debian
is going to do.
If you think that Debian has a wrong-headed social contract, or the
language in the social contract is leading to interpretations of the
SC that are anathema to you, then make an appropriate change to the
social contract along the lines of the other proposals listed.
Of course, it's quite clear that you can propose almost any sort of
proposal that you wish, assuming that it gains enough seconds.[2] I'm
merely requesting that the proposer and seconders of this proposal
consider the effect that this proposal will have, and deal with the
conflicts that have already been pointed out.
Don Armstrong
1: http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt
2: Just as nothing prevents legislators from writing wierd laws that
are inconsistent with existing law.
--
There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good
sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more.
-- Woody Allen
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: