On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:58:18PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 21 May 2006, Thomas Weber wrote: > > Don't you think that the main problem here is that there *wasn't* any > > discussion, at least for the vast majority of Debian developers and > > users? > > No, if we should discuss before taking any action we wouldn't get > anything done. If you really want to contest the decision, you have the > GR. > > That's it, but it would be unproductive.
How so? a GR to get it back out again because of a bad licence seems like a good idea at the moment (but, IANADD, so your milage may vary). It seems that there's a fairly large group of people that do not agree with the licence, and from the discussion on the list I'm inclined to agree with them. > > And yes, as a Debian user I'm surprised that such decisions are > > taken behind closed doors; this is not a security related issue and it > > wouldn't have done any harm to Debian to discuss this in the open. > > Someone from Sun contacts you to examinate a new license for Java and ask > you advice and all, and ask you to keep that info private. What do you > respond to him ? "No sorry, we really don't care, go away"? Bing bing bing... and so they become too close to the situation... > There was no other choice, that's all. Yes there was, just because you're reviewing a licence and giving feedback doesn't then mean that it should be added to the archive without discussion... > > If that had delayed the inclusion, so be it; after several years without > > Sun's Java in Debian, some more weeks wouldn't have hurt neither users > > nor the project itself. > > And we would have lost an opportunity to do some PR stuff and show > everyone that we're an important player in the Linux world. Ah right, so it's all a PR excercise... I assume that it was part of the planning that it'd go in and *then* there'd be an uproar about it then, that's *great* PR that is. > The choice has already been made. Both sides have positive sides and > negative ones. The choice has been made, no point in discussing it over > again and again. *sigh* - so, in your eyes there's no fix, it's a one off "it's been done, let's move on" and leave it in non-free? > > Oh, and the impression that pushing non-free packages in after several > > hours has a high priority, while (license-wise) simple packages linger > > for weeks in NEW was probably a bonus[1]. > > I have to agree this sucks but if you have the schedule in mind it's easy > to understand: > - NEW is done by Joerg usually, he's organizing debconf so there's a > backlog due to that > - Sun guys are here at debconf and finalize discussions with the java > maintainers (Jeroen, Matthias Klose, Barry Hawkins), the package is > finally uploaded and immediately installed by Jeroen (or another > ftpmaster) > - We make an announce (almost) the same day than Sun announces its stuff > at Javaone ... Righhhhht... and this is good in what way? > > > > It would be bad PR if Debian will have to remove Sun Java from the > > > > archive, shortly after public announcements that it accepted it in. > > > > > > No it wouldn't. > > > > Well, there I disagree with you: it would. At the very least, it would > > give the impression that Debian can't decide what it wants. > > No, it would simply show that Sun is not committed to what they told us. > We have been reasonable and accepted to work with them. If they change > their mind, then it's Sun which is not reasonable. Errr, hang on... surely it shouldn't have been accepted in to the archive *until* the commitment had reached it's potential so that we then didn't have this endless debate on the list, and the potential of a GR? Surely it's up to the project to decide what's fit for inclusion, and with the current licence, I don't see as it is. Cheers, Brett. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
