Re: Call for seconds: post-Lenny enforceability of DFSG violations
- To: Thomas Viehmann <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Call for seconds: post-Lenny enforceability of DFSG violations
- From: Robert Millan <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:39:18 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20081109183918.GA25982@thorin>
- In-reply-to: <4908D6D7.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20081027155612.GA5139@thorin> <20081028162724.GB18358@p12n.org> <20081029144316.GA13492@thorin> <email@example.com> <20081029202233.GC24488@thorin> <4908D6D7.firstname.lastname@example.org>
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?
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.
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."