Re: [all candidates] Debian as an FSF Free Software Distribution
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [all candidates] Debian as an FSF Free Software Distribution
- From: Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:39:52 +0100
- Message-id: <20130315123952.GA26173@xanadu.blop.info>
- In-reply-to: <CANTw=MOcc1KxBYQ9HDri4sWTJdqQNVcc8H-FGz6p=O45MbU8UQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <20130314162123.GA10891@chayot> <CANTw=MOcc1KxBYQ9HDri4sWTJdqQNVcc8H-FGz6p=O45MbU8UQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 14/03/13 at 23:05 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > What work will you be doing to continue Zach's efforts to negotiate with
> > the FSF over Debian's status as a Free Software Distribution?
> > Will you treat this issue as a priority? Can we expect continued open
> > dialogue with the FSF on this issue? Would you be willing to help find
> > the right concessions on both sides to collaborate?
> > What is your opinion on this matter?
> I am more curious what the candidates think should or can be done in
> light of the FSF's absenteeism in that discussion (so far). What (if
> anything) can actually be accomplished without even a
> partially-defined path from their perspective?
We don't need the FSF to do review of our archives and practices, and
identify some bugs (as done in e.g.
But of course, we need the FSF to explain what they consider
inappropriate. If elected, I would:
- add this topic to the list of things that I would check on a
regular basis (prior to every DPL helpers meeting, for example)
- make sure that the FSF is pinged on a regular basis, or by someone for
is "in charge" of following that topic
- communicate the status of this topic in monthly bits. I think that
that's the only kind of pressure we can use anyway...