Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 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.
The sensible time for anyone to bring up this topic would have been
during or before the Alioth replacement sprint.
I am not involved with salsa, but this kind of changes tend to be a
lot less work when they are included in the planning phase, instead
of changes to a heavily used running system.
> 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).
If someone does go down the road, the most likely result will be to
decommission salsa:
With a bureaucratic process in place that might take weeks just for
getting a new git tree approved, most people would consider external
places like GitHub much more attractive and use these instead.
At that point it might no longer make sense to spend scarce Debian
resources on server maintainance and contents vetting.
> 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.
So in case of problems with contents on salsa, we expect that the
salsa administrators will pay all legal expenses out of their own
pockets without any support from Debian?
> 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".
If that's the outcome, it would be great.
> 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.
This a fair assumption for the DD-only NEW, but not for salsa.
> bye, Joerg
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: