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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:

> If you have an option saying "Allow Lenny to release with firmware
> blobs.  This does not override the DFSG", I can only see that make sense
> if it really means: "firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation", and the
> "Lenny" part doesn't make sense.

> The same goes for "Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations.
> This does not override the SC."  That would be the same as "Allow
> releases with known DFSG violations".

I agree.  However, I'm very reluctant to say that the Secretary should
prevent the project from voting on proposals that don't make sense,
provided that they're constitutionally clear.

I would vote against both of those proposals as phrased because I think
they're self-contradictory and they're not interpretations that I think we
can make, despite the fact that I was on the side favoring releasing lenny
in the previous GR.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: