On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > > Moin, > > > > On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote: > > > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for > > > 60 days or more > > > > besides that this proposal still has at least the problem of "who > > determines > > how" (that the DFSG has been violated) I have been thinking that I would be > > much more comfortable with it, if the timeline would be 120 or 180 days > > instead of 60. (Rationale: legalise moves much slower than code.) > > > > But probably thats a minor point too. > > Fine with me. What does everyone else think? > > In particular, would any of the people who object to this GR be less concerned > if the time was increased?
Since noone else replied, I'll pick 180. If someone feels strongly enough that the number should be different, they can send their own proposal, of course. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
