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

Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements

Le Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 01:01:40PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>         If we want to change our foundation documents, and remove the
>  awoval to the concept of being 100% free, or to say that Debian, and
>  thus the parts of Debian covered by the DFSG, are just the binary bits,
>  then we can do so via constitutionally approved methods like GR's with
>  appropriate majority requirements.
>         Is this what is being considered?

Le Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:04:06PM +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> If I understand your correctly you seem to think that your proposal wouldnt 
> need a GR if a DPL that supports it (e.g. you) would be elected. How so?

In my GR proposal, there are three options, and none of them change the DFSG.
The first of them apperars quite consensual. The only problem is that if everybody
agrees that we are wasting time on over-documenting debian/copyright, why
don't we change our archive policy? I think that if a DPL that agrees with that
change is elected, he will have a strong position to discuss with the FTP team,
and a GR will be unnecessary.

The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian operating
system. It is controversial. Despite it does not change our fundation
documents, I think that a GR would be needed to make sure that there is a
general agreement. Also, I think that GRs should be used to move forward when a
choice is needed, but should be avoided when the result is to demotivate many
developers. I will not push the second option if this is the case (not to
mention that I think that a GR should be started only if it has good chances of
being accepted).

I hope this explains,


Reply to: