Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move
> > > glibc to non-free (and with it, half of the archive to contrib)? It
> > > would be faster to move everything to non-free.
> > Neither the SC nor my proposed text enforce moving stuff to contrib,
> It does, packages in main cannot (Build-)?Depend upon non-free, hence
> must be moved to contrib.
> If you move linux to non-free (ignoring the blatant silliness of such an
> action), every package that needs linux-source would move to contrib.
> Say kernel-package, m-a, all the kernel-patches, iptables, ...
> everything. And ... even the glibc since it uses linux-libc-dev to
> build, so in turn 90% of Debian shall go to contrib.
Don't you find it a bit contradictory that you're arguing that we should
"bend SC #1" and at the same time argue that if we don't, we have to interpret
SC #5 in such an overzealous way that compels us to do things that are not
even in the text?
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."