On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:07:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > Moin, > > > > > > On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG > > > > for > > > > 60 days or more > > > > > > besides that this proposal still has at least the problem of "who > > > determines > > > how" (that the DFSG has been violated) I have been thinking that I would > > > be > > > much more comfortable with it, if the timeline would be 120 or 180 days > > > instead of 60. (Rationale: legalise moves much slower than code.) > > > > > > But probably thats a minor point too. > > > > Fine with me. What does everyone else think? > > > > In particular, would any of the people who object to this GR be less > > concerned > > if the time was increased? > > Since noone else replied, I'll pick 180. If someone feels strongly enough > that the number should be different, they can send their own proposal, of > course.
Now that I think, this means the options that only included my proposed reform would not have the effect of preventing Lenny from releasing with non-free code. Since sorting that out would require even more complexity in the ballot, I will propose a GR that only deals with what we do about Lenny, and re-send my reform proposal later on. This also makes it easier for others to select what they want to second. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]