On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Yep, but there is a difference between the information being available, > > > and it > > > being actively feeded to the NSA or whoever. And it is especially > > > bothering if > > > this cause undue delay in our normal activities, like aj is saying it is. > > > > So, you want to abolish the DFSG? What part of free do you not understand? > > Notice that : > > 1) to have a package pass NEW, some manual BSwhatevr notification is needed.
Any new binary will have to pass NEW. Having to do notifications doesn't change that(and that's an automatic process, anyways). > 2) this means that we are not free to do a modification of a package that > makes it go into NEW without the approval of the ftp-master *and* the > notification to said agency. Notifications are always done, anyways. See -devel-changes. > 3) Some would argue that this impose an additional fee or restriction (in > the same way as a post-card licence) on our distribution as part of debian. > (read the debian-legal posts for this past year or so, if you doubt). Only if every developer had to do it themself. But this notification is automated. > 4) furthermore, i believe that, altough it never happened, it could well be > that the BSwhatever agency may also once it reads the notification, reject > the export authorization for a particular package, no ? I am not aware of there being a reject procedure in place. > So, you want to go into DFSG flamewar, please go ahead. Understand how the system works first, which you don't seem to. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
