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

Re: Question for candidate Towns [Was, Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:

> > > Yep, but there is a difference between the information being available, and it
> > > being actively feeded to the NSA or whoever. And it is especially bothering if
> > > this cause undue delay in our normal activities, like aj is saying it is.
> >
> > So, you want to abolish the DFSG?  What part of free do you not understand?
> Notice that :
>   1) to have a package pass NEW, some manual BSwhatevr notification is needed.

Any new binary will have to pass NEW.  Having to do notifications doesn't
change that(and that's an automatic process, anyways).

>   2) this means that we are not free to do a modification of a package that
>   makes it go into NEW without the approval of the ftp-master *and* the
>   notification to said agency.

Notifications are always done, anyways.  See -devel-changes.

>   3) Some would argue that this impose an additional fee or restriction (in
>   the same way as a post-card licence) on our distribution as part of debian.
>   (read the debian-legal posts for this past year or so, if you doubt).

Only if every developer had to do it themself.  But this notification is

>   4) furthermore, i believe that, altough it never happened, it could well be
>   that the BSwhatever agency may also once it reads the notification, reject
>   the export authorization for a particular package, no ?

I am not aware of there being a reject procedure in place.

> So, you want to go into DFSG flamewar, please go ahead.

Understand how the system works first, which you don't seem to.

Reply to: