* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If we accept it, we've made a Debian-specific deal to distribute that > > software. Is that acceptable? I don't believe it is. > > What I've heard from the Mozilla folks is that it isn't specific to Debian > in the sense that they like Debian in particular. It's specific to Debian > just because we're competent and don't screw up the packaging and cause > them a bunch of problems. > > Maybe we could ask them to rephrase the agreement in that form? It would > then not be specific to Debian the organization, and instead specific to > how the source is treated, which then moves the whole thing unambiguously > into DFSG #4.
This is one of the first things I asked them to do. They came back saying that that sort of policy would be too vague. I countered that we didn't need something legally ironclad (which I doubt their current policy document is anyway), just something stating their intention and we would take it on good faith that they would apply it fairly. Gervase was not swayed. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
