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

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 06:56:44PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > >
> > > > I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian is
> > > > reported to the US secret services or whatever by the ftp-masters and our
> > > > archive handling services, and i certainly did *NOT* agree to this being the
> > > > case.
> > >
> > > What are you talking about?  Debian prohibits anonymous developers,
> > > always has; for the longest time this was the only real restriction on
> > > joining Debian: you had to find a few other Debian developers to
> > > verify you had a real ID.
> >
> > 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.
  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.
  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).
  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 ? 

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

Friendly,

Sven Luther