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

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

On Wed, Oct 22 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

> At some point, someone has to decide. Doing a vote for each is
> impractical. As our choice is _not_ silent, if someones (like usually
> the reporter who _sees_ such tags happen) disagree, he can raise a
> discussion. AFAICT it's what is happening currently, and it shows that
> the system is sane and works. At some point if we want to scale, we have
> to delegate, and it's just that.

        Look, I am not proposing we have a GR for every upload. I am
 saying that non-free bits in main are a bug. A serious bug. A RC
 bug. It is a big fucking deal. It comes to the core of what Debian is.

        Now, we know there are unknon bugs and known bugs in the
 archive, especially in Sid. Shit happens.  Bugs take time to fix. But
 releasing with DFSG violations should still be a big deal. It is not
 something that some delegate decides is OK to do. The project tands up,
 acknowledges we failed out users by not providing them a free operating
 system like we promised in the social contract, acknowledge that the
 SC is still what we would like to do, but we failed this time around,
 and, as a project, take responsibility for our failure.

        This is what we have done in the past, through GR's for Sarge
 and Etch. We should not become Blase about shipping non-free operating
 systems. It should not become common place.

Ditat Deus. [God enriches]
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: