Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

[Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org>]

On 14994 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> Since Debian distributing whatever random people upload to salsa
> is fine for you, I fail to see the point why you would consider 
> distributing what is in the DD-only NEW a huge problem.

It is not fine. But I've chosen to not go down the road that would be
needed here. I've got enough on my plate, I can't put this on.

If someone does go down the road, then any project creation on salsa
would possibly end up needing to be vetted by an admin (or a new team
doing this, or a combination of new team and NEW handling, as parts of
this surely could be merged then).

Right now, the handling of stuff on salsa follows what was done for
alioth "It may have a .debian.org, but its not run by Debian, so the
project chose to ignore parts of the problems with it". And implicitly
either put it onto the shoulders of the alioth admins, or the individual.

There is an argument for this having changed now, with the new setup,
yes, but following that opens such a big can, I don't want to do this.
Thats something the DPL might want to get some informed (ie. lawyers)
opinion on, how free that service can be.

I would love for the outcome of that to be something like "It's fine if
open, as long as there is a contact that quickly disables reported
$legalfoo violations".

Also, in a way we do assume people NOT intentionally putting bad stuff
up, though the current system does make it farely easy to play bad here.

-- 
bye, Joerg