Russ Allbery wrote:
In other words, if non-free is just another archive section, why do we
have this whole distinction? And while we're maintaining this
distinction, I think it's clear that moving something into non-free is
never going to be an action people are willing to take lightly. Since,
Ean Schuessler writes:
> What you are avoiding is that the FTP masters or the Technical Committee
> *is* option D in your scheme. They are the final arbitrators of DFSG
> compliance.
I see nothing in the constitution that empowers the TC to rule on
licensing issues except when they're explicitly
- "Ian Jackson" wrote:
> Then the ftpmasters and/or the TC will decide to throw it out. If you
> don't trust the ftpmasters and you don't trust the TC then what kind
> of setup could you trust ? If you're only willing to trust yourself
> and your hand-picked co-adherents then I'm afraid you
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call
for votes for the Lenny release GR)"):
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [Raphael:]
> > > I agree with the intent but I don't agree with the list of persons you
> > > selected. I would restrict it to:
> >
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:45:59AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This leaves us with really four options:
> A. Explicitly de-entrench the Foundation Documents by repealing
> Constitution 4.1(5) 1..3 and establishing the Social Contract
> and DFSG as simple Position Statements according to 4
5 matches
Mail list logo
