On 04/10/2013 06:56 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 05:54:14PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit : >>> Suggestion #3: have a system where any other DD can review >>> a package in the NEW queue, not only the FTP masters or the >>> FTP assistants. >> That would include publishing the contents of the NEW queue, >> at least to all Debian Developers - so we might violate >> licenses already. > I have not read any convincing argument in favor of our current practice, not > to mention that most arguments are guesses on the reasons of the persons in > charge rather than a clear statement from the persons in charge themselves. > > We do not have much measures in place to ensure that our archive does not > contain packages that start to violate licenses after their first upload. In > parallel, we have a lot of download points that are not subjected to copyright > and license review. I do not see a reason why the NEW queue must be more > perfect than both our archive and the rest of the non-aptable files we > distribute. > > Conversely, the existence of sites such as Ubuntu's PPA, SourceForge, GitHub > and many others show that a large number of software providers are confident > that a policy of a posteriori removals is sufficient. I do not understand why > we do not reach the same conclusion for the NEW queue, which is not even a > software distribution in the sense of the Debian archive or the sites > mentionned above. > > Fedora for instance publicly reviews the new packages in a bugtracker, with > download links that sometimes are pointing to Fedora-hosted machines. I think > that reaching that level of transparency would have a positive impact on our > capacity to keep on attracting new contributors. > > Cheers, Exactly. Very well said!
Thomas -- 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/5164be8d.1090...@debian.org
