On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:02:53 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On the other hand, "kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian > > kernel team, based on the Linux kernel by Linus Torvalds and others" > > seems to be accurate credit, doesn't it? > > It's an arguably accurate description, but strikes me as an arguably > misleading credit.
I'm more and more puzzled. Could you please phrase what you would consider an accurate (non misleading) credit? > > > [...] > > > I agree with that advice. Some licensors have drunk CC deeply and > > > will not move, so I suggest that CC-sco is a possible compromise > > > route until a fixed CC 3.x is finally published. > > > > Please do not tell me that we must compromise our principles while > > waiting for things to get magically fixed. > > Depends what principle. I do not suggest compromising on the DFSG, > but I do suggest compromising over exactly which licence to use to > as the basis for meeting the DFSG. Start from a troublesome license and patch it hard so that it is `forced' to meet the DFSG? I don't agree with this approach. I would rather suggest: start from a clearly DFSG-free license and do nothing else. License proliferation is bad. Disclaimer: I used the term "DFSG-free license" only for convenience sake; I know that it's the piece of software, not the license, that can comply with the DFSG or fail to do so. > > > I'm already deeply disappointed by the Debian project for taking > > such decision with GR-2006-001... :-((( > > I think it remains to be seen which decision the project took. The decision is clear enough to drop bug reports on that basis. I mean: there are bugs that have already been marked as "done" because of GR-2006-001. This sounds like "This bug is not a bug". This is what disappoints me more: I'm losing my belief that the Debian project is willing to actually fix the important bugs that are reported... :-((( I have so far spent a non-negligible amount of time in analysing licenses, detecting issues and reporting bugs, trying to do my little part to help enhancing Debian: I'm not sure I will go on likewise in the future, with a GR that basically said "You wasted your time: we won't consider those bugs as actual bugs to be fixed" and the risk that other serious issues are magically considered non-issues by GR, just because the project feels unconfortable with them (or for whatever other unexplained reason)... > The > position statement issued was vague at best, contradictory at worst, > and has caused ripples which I think will provoke another vote. I don't count on another vote to happen. The majority expressed their opinion: I doubt many people would vote differently in another round. At least, not soon... This means that etch will most probably be out *tainted* by non-free packages in main (as any previous stable release was), but (and this is the novelty!) this situation won't be regarded as a bug to be fixed anymore... :-((( -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgp8jhHf5uQjI.pgp
Description: PGP signature