> On Freitag, 24. Februar 2012, Karl Goetz wrote: > > Contributors *to upstart* need to agree to the canonical contribution > > agreement, I'm not sure what gives you the idea that all daemon > > maintainers will fall in that category.
[Holger Levsen] > still. > > a blocker. Eh, it's only a problem if the upstart maintainers in Debian refuse to accept work (via either BTS patches, or done directly by comaintainers) that upstream will not also accept. This position itself seems incompatible with the belief that upstream was not interested in non-Linux portability patches. If upstream is expected to refuse certain patches needed for kFreeBSD, there's no point in caring about the fact that they will _also_ refuse certain patches because they require signed contributor agreements. Also, the only practical way this differs from the situation with software from either the Free Software Foundation or the Apache Software Foundation seems to be that, oddly, more people think Canonical is evil than think the FSF and ASF are evil. -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120224185015.gf2...@p12n.org
