* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 02:35]:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:03:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I would say that replacal of the Sun-code should be a release goal for
> > sarge+1, except if the matter could be clarified with Sun or someone
> > stands up right now to actually write the code.
> Why? We can just put off fixing it then, too.
>
> It seems there will always be more important things to do than ensure
> that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software.[1]
No. You're misinterpreting my opinion. In my opinion Debian Should
become 100% Free Software. Perhaps I try a clarification (and I'm
still not convinced that the Sun RPC-code is not DFSG, and/or that it
is not ok to distribute it with the glibc, but I know that it's the
other way round: We must be satisfied that code is DFSG-free and
distributable, so I'm not discussing about this now):
I can see several lines of action now, roughly as follows (this list
is not orderd by preference):
1. Don't care about the issue any more, or get permission by sun
(permission would be the best of course)
2. Release sarge now with the code, and sarge+1 in about a year with
code with another license
3. Replace the code with something else, and release sarge after
appropriate testing time, i.e. in about a year.
4. Remove the code from sarge, and release sarge without RPC, and add
free code to sarge+1.
5. Remove the code from woody, sarge and sid and add free code to
sarge+1.
This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release
name stable is, release name in []):
now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04
1 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] sun[sarge+1]
2 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] new[sarge+1]
3 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[woody] new[sarge]
4 sun[woody] sun[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1]
5 sun[woody] none[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1]
So, the question is which of these ways is acceptable. If way 3 is
acceptable to you (replace the code before release of sarge), what is
the problem with way 2? I can't see the difference between the two
ways in relation to freedom of Debian. But, going 2 instead of 3 has
the advantage that a lot of other problems of our users are solved.
So, either be consequent and remove this code from woody r2 (and/or
relase sarge without RPC-code soon), or let this code stay in sarge. I
can't see any benefit of delaying sarge while distributing this actual
piece of code in stable.
I hope that my considerations are more understandable now. It's not
about compromising the freeness of Debian. It's about removing a
(possible) compromise with the least damage.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
