The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: There are _TWO_ discussions here



> 
> 	1) fully DFSG compliant, with no dependency problems
> 	2) fully DFSG compliant, with dependency problems
> 	3) non-DFSG compliant, with no distribution restrictions
> 	4) non-DFSG compliant, with distribution restrictions
> 

How many times  have we seen this list ? :)

Look, we have different opinions and let's resolve them by vote.

What about having two questions:

1) Do we need to maintain distinction between freely distributable
packages and packages which have distribution restrictions _outside_ of
*main* ?

2) Do we need to have distinction between DFSG-compliant and not DFSG-
compliant packages _outside_ of *main* provided these DFSG-compliant
packages will be included into Official CD ?

By counting yes/no we will come to the structure.

What do you think?

Alex Y.



> You think that only 1, 2, and 4 are important.  Dale thinks that only 1, 3, 
> and 4 are important.  I see some value in distinguishing between 3 and 4, and 
> now understand your motivation for wanting to have a separate section for 2.
> 
> Maybe the right number of areas is really either '2' for "it meets the DFSG or
> it doesn't" as the only distinction (at which point we can argue over whether
> the DFSG needs to be updated to include explicit dependency restrictions), or
> '4' to preserve the above list of distinctions.
> 
> Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I lean towards only having two
> areas.  If we think the DFSG is that important, and we seem to, then 
> arguing over what non-DFSG-ness to pay attention to and which to not pay 
> attention to is a waste of our time.
> 
> Having said that, let me respond to two of your other points individually, as
> they highlight other differences in what things we care about, and what we
> think is easy or hard.
> 
> : Exactly. That's why we want to make the "free<->non-free" distinction more
> : clearly. Everything in "contrib" can be distributed without problems if
> : all packages in contrib apply to the DFSG, even if these packages are not
> : `totally free', since they depend on non-free packages.
> 
> It is equally true that everything in contrib can be distributed even if some
> of the packages in contrib don't meet the DFSG, as long as everything there
> is freely distributable.  I don't agree that "freely distributable" is
> complicated and obscure... if a given package's documentation doesn't make 
> the distinction clearly, we drop it in non-free and move on to the next one!
> 
> : Sorry, but I still don't see the advantage of seperating
> : "non-free-but-distributable" from "non-distributable" if this only
> : affects 6 packages but makes things a lot more complicated.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't think it's complicated, and don't really care how many 
> packages are affected in today's list of packages.
> 
> Bdale
-- 
   _ 
 _( )_
(     (o___           +-------------------------------------------+
 |      _ 7           |            Alexander Yukhimets            |
  \    (")            |       http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/      |
  /     \ \           +-------------------------------------------+


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .