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

Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny

This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
>         I am not sure what you consider to be wrong here. Are you
>  objecting to the title of the proposal? Or to the majority requirement?
>  The proposal title does not mention which parts of Debian would be give
>  the authority; it just concentrates on what the project is allowing
>  itself to do.
>         In a way, the contents of parts of the archive (Sid and
>  testing), are works in progress.  When we release, collectively, we are
>  releasing a finished version of the Debian system. No one person or
>  group is responsible for the Debian system, in my view, we are all
>  involved in it. And we are all collectively responsible for ensuring
>  that the Debian system is 100% free. Even if there are missteps during
>  the preparation phase, the finished product, whch would be the current
>  incarnation of the Debian system, must meet the social contract. The
>  language of the social contract leaves little wiggle room.

I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1
supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software
in question served in the first place.  It seems to me that what you're
saying is that it's fine to have a non-free kernel or glibc side by
side with a broken one in the same directory, so long as the non-free
one isn't listed in the Packages file that the stable symlink points to.
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: