Well, I've been reading the responses and I'm sorry for starting all of this. I don't like this kind of discussions, they deeply depress me, but it just happens that lately I'm getting involved frequently on many of them. I want to say some things.
I hereby say that, in my subjective point of view, current Debian Social Contract and policy are made of high quantities of hypocrisy. I know this word may hurt some people, but it is not intended as a insult. I acknowledge there are many people working hard to make fixes [1], and even people who disagree with the importance of those bugs appear to have their own reasons to do that. So, I don't think that the word hypocrisy should be directed to a person in particular; I just see that the result of Debian as a whole does not match with my desired level of "purity", this is a fact in my point of view. Although clarified, I maintain my claims about hypocrisy. I absolutely don't want anybody to feel insulted, but in case anybody does, I can only say that I'm honestly sorry very much for hurting you, but my claims are maintained. I also want to present my apologies for being too strong in some of my messages. Some of my neurons got tickled, and they are the ones that carry my deep fundamental and basics ethics. Maybe I'm too serious about topics like copyright, laws, free software, DFSG... but I can't change my mind (and not sure if I want to). I can't see any exceptions in the current policy for free software, and neither I see particular cases where it should be relaxed [2]. That is the reason for myself being happy, until now, with Debian; the rigid position for non-free and free software just fits well into my mind. Certainly, I would prefer things to not follow this path, but if most people thinks that it is OK to get relaxed under certain circumstances, all I can say is that an official clarification for all those circumstances is much appreciated (like the one that it is currently for firmware). I'm not only referring to this particular bug. I've found one string on one file that appears to be sufficient for everybody to agree in the priority. More generally, I'm referring to any other case, like giving priority to release in time, license incompatibilities, how much time a package should be allowed in main with the bug unresolved, how serious is not give credit for data or to suspect about the procedence... all should be documented, please. This way, maybe I would not agree with the policy, but at least I would feel it is sincere, which is probably the main concern for myself in this moment. I know of at least 5 more packages under the situation that we can call "unclear". I'm currently so much depressed to continue with the goals I've previously posted here [3], but other people can continue if they want, it is not hard to find those cases on packages that contain icons, textures or sounds. Notes: [1] There are many positive examples. This bug in particular looks very similar to the one I reported: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=174456 [2] At least I have not found them, or I do not correctly interpreted them in case they exists. [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00124.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
