Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > I think it's black and white if it's a bug. If it's worth investing the > effort in fixing the bug is all kinds of shades of gray.
I don't think that's a horribly useful distinction for this conversation, which is about what will be accepted into the archive or not. (In essence, this whole conversation is about whether it's an RC bug, which by definition is worth effort in fixing unless we remove the package entirely.) > If we're going to have the rule be that source in the preferred form of > modification is only required when the license requires it, then we > should change the rules of the project to match. DFSG #2 is not at all > vague about what it requires. Then we cannot include the GPL in our distribution, since it is under a clearly and unambiguously non-DFSG license, and therefore, by its license terms, must remove all of the software in the archive that is covered by it. In other words, while the above sounds very clear and consistent, it's not what we actually do. It's not clear to me that amending the social contract to carve out these various exception cases is worth the effort or will result in a less ambiguous document than we have now. The reality of practice is always messy. > Additionally, I disagree that the freeness of the packages we give our > users so they can modify the software is substantially less important > than the freeness of the packages we give them to run. (recognizing > that as a practically matter, compromises get made). There's a saying about priorities: if everything is equally important, that means nothing is important. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87bnxawsfl....@windlord.stanford.edu
