Re: Re: "remove this package from another developer" (

> >Yes, you can. Whether the package should be removed or not, that's for the >ftp-masters to decide. That such kinds of bug reports could be done in a >nicer way, well, that's probably true, but still... Well, i have the impression that there is a false claim. I have been reading this thread, a

Re: "remove this package from another developer"

On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > In any event, the Technical Committee and Project Secretary are not and > cannot be delegates under the Constitution[1]. Additionally, most port- and CDD-maintainers are not delegates (and they certainly are not delegates in their

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:23:00PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 02:55]: > > I fail to see why debian-legal's "undelegated" status is at all relevant > > given our current leadership philsophy. > > The difference is tha

Re: "remove this package from another developer"

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:41:00AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Branden Robinson: > > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > >> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > >>

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 02:55]: > Okay, fair enough. Archive administration is done by those who roll up > their sleeves and do it -- the people on other end of > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > By the same token, public DFSG-based analysis of licenses and how they are > appli

Re: "remove this package from another developer"

* Branden Robinson: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: >> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: >> > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final >>

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final > > > decision lies with the

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.07.12.1409 +0200]: > IIRC, Martin mentioned this the last time you asked about > delegations, too. Thanks Colin. I would appreciate if this issue was left to myself. I am working with the author through the problems and hope to get libcwd freed.

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final > > decision lies with the archive maintainers. > > I see. Where are the archive maintainers' o

Re: "remove this package from another developer"

On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:31:43PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > It is not. But as far as I have gathered so far, once d-l gets into a > consensus that something is not DFSG-compliant, it gets quite difficult to > convince someone that matters (one of the ftp-masters) that you're cor

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final > decision lies with the archive maintainers. I see. Where are the archive maintainers' official delegations? -- G. Branden Robinson| The grea

Re: "remove this package from another developer"

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As far as licenses go, if the consensus in debian-legal is that something is > > non-free, you lose. > > Where in official Debian documents (e.g. constitution, policy > manual, etc.) do you see such

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]: > > debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses > > to move this package to non-free; therefore, I am requesting its > > removal in an effort to lower the number of RC bug

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]: > > > debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses > > > to move this package to non-free; t

"remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

* Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]: > debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses > to move this package to non-free; therefore, I am requesting its > removal in an effort to lower the number of RC bugs. See the -legal > discussion [0]. Sorry, but t