On 2022-02-05 16:07, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > Just because someone else can't be bothered to do licence review checking > doesn't mean that Debian shouldn't.
I wasn't advocating against license review checking in general, though. We expect and trust all contributors to do that. The question as I see it is: why do we need another party (ftp-master) to verify that first review. It's a major bottleneck to everyone, a huge burden to the ftp-master team. As far as I can recall, the argument has always been that is necessary for liability reasons. My point is that I don't recall every seeing such a liability materialize with other projects, so perhaps our assumptions about the magnitude of this issue are wrong. (Or I'm just ignorant about such cases.) > I'd much rather that packages were removed in NEW than that they got > installed in unstable and we then had to tell people that they had > gone. > There's a huge amount of software that's undistributable: Debian's good faith > attempt to review this is one of the crucial arguments I have with $DAYJOB > about the benefits of a curated distribution, however fallible we may be. Fair enough.