Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:01:02PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote:
>
> 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.
The basic difference is that in one case it is the result of an unintended
mistake [1], and in the other it is the result of known, willfull
infringement of the Social Contract.
It is in fact so clear, that we have a state in the BTS for bugs that are
known to violate the DFSG and nevertheless intentionally ignored by the
Release Team ("lenny-ignore" tag).
[1] e.g. FTP masters not finding a specific violation during routine
inspection [2], or package maintainers uploading new upstream
versions that introduce new violations.
[2] or finding and ignoring them, in which case this *is* a serious problem,
not an example that can be used to justify more of the same.
--
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: