Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:22:18PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:42:25PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Huh ? If you go _your_ route, we should not bend any rules, to the point
> where we break. I'm saying what it really means to not adapt and find a
> more pragmatic solution, and you're saying _I'm_ advocating strict
> interpretation ? Please...
AFAIK, contrib exists only to ensure that main is self-contained, which is
a requirement outside the scope of the SC (read: lower priority). With my
proposed ammendment it'd implicitly be sanctioned (but we could make that
explicit for the sake of clarity; what does everyone think on that?).
Furthermore, the stage in which a package in main depends on one that
has moved to non-free is supposed to be a bug pending to be fixed, either
by:
- gettting the depended package back to main
- removing the dependency
- moving the depending package to contrib
and is NOT a new situation.
--
Robert Millan
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."
Reply to: