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

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 02:00:27PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Robert Millan]
> > +	<p>
> > +	  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
> > +	  Debian Free Software Guidelines</cite></q> for 60 days or more, and
> > +	  none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
> > +	  suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
> > +	  ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
> > +	</p>
> It seems pretty impractical to allow the release of lenny, as some of
> the options do, yet force/authorize somebody to immediately, upon
> lenny's release, fix the linux-2.6 situation _in lenny_.  Since of
> course we've known about linux-2.6 for far longer than 60 (or 180)
> days.
> For that matter, some of these options have the curious effect of
> allowing the lenny release while simultaneously authorizing developers
> to fix the etch and sarge kernels.  Not that that part is enforceable,
> I'm pretty sure the RMs wouldn't actually allow that to happen.
> Now if you change the wording to exempt our published releases from
> this entire process, so that it applies only to unstable and testing,
> it would be a lot easier to support.


Note that (after someone else pointed out the same concern) I included wording
to avoid this:

  "however, moving packages in the \"stable\" distribution may still require
  approval by the Release Team for \"stable\""

Perhaps we should also explicitly exclude "oldstable"?  But what about versions
before oldstable then?

Or we could make it inclusive and list only "unstable" and "experimental".

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: