Re: Call for seconds: post-Lenny enforceability of DFSG violations

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:34:15PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> 
> As you seem to have conceded (for the purposes of this resolution) to
> seeing the DFSG-violations fixed post-Lenny and with the linux-2.6 (with
> Ben's work) and hopefully also glibc and portmap (now that Sun people
> seem to be interested in looking for ways to help) being on a good way,
> maybe it would be best to bring this up again should things not be
> fixed, say, 2 months after the lenny release?

Hi Thomas,

I appreciate the conciliatory tone of your message, but I think you've
missunderstood my concerns.

The position I'm trying to defend is very simple:  We have the Social Contract
for a reason, it is our promise to the free software community.  And if the
Release Team (or any team) feels we can't stand to our promises, and needs to
override them somehow, this _must_ be done with the endorsement of the project,
not because a few, chosen ones, decide it unilaterally.

Whether the project decides that we need an exception that overrides SC #1 for
the Nth time or not, that's a secondary problem as far as I'm concerned.

-- 
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."