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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:57:04PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them
> | against each other.

I believe this phrase invalidates SC #1.

  - If this is so, why is it not explicit?

  - If it is not, what is, in your judgement, the correct interpretation of
    SC #1?

> | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
> | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
> | case-by-case-decisions as they consider fit, and if necessary
> | authorize these decisions.

What does the word "continue" mean in this phrase?  Are you trying to imply
that the release team is _already_ empowered to make decisions that override
SC #1?

  - If you are, why is it not explicit?

  - If you're not, then please remove the "continue" from that phrase.

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: