Re: Unteralterbach (was: Re: clarify FTP master delegation?)
On 13/03/14 11:14, Mateusz Jończyk wrote: W dniu 12.03.2014 22:17, Vincent Cheng pisze: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: I don't believe Debian is the right place or mechanism to pick this fight. I think it would be a huge distraction from the point of the project, for basically exactly the reasons spelled out here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/msg00056.html and we should pass on this particular package. I think it would be great to have other packages of the same software type but with different content in Debian. Just not this particular content profile, which should be handled by people who know what they're getting into, can focus on this specific type of collision between free speech and other social issues, and don't have other goals that would be put at risk by getting into the middle of this fight. The above is written very carefully to try to avoid expressing any opinion about the merits of the content itself. Please don't try to read an opinion on that into the above. Agreed. Yet again I'm left to admire at how eloquently Russ can turn his thoughts into words. :) I started contributing to Debian because of its technical excellence and its adherence to FOSS principles, and I think that's what we're best known for. I strongly do not think that Debian is an appropriate platform for advocating for social, moral, or ethical values, nor do I think that Debian is the right place to making a statement on controversies relating to the above issues. The main benefit of the game when it comes to including it in Debian is probably its alleged artistic value. (I did not personally play the game so I cannot judge it). The Proponent for including in the Debian described this artistic value as: W dniu 12.03.2014 02:33, Nils Dagsson Moskopp pisze: A major point of the game is that whatever choice you make, the protagonist is neither a hero nor a sympathetic character. I think you can play the whole game without triggering any sex scene and the player character is still a xenophobic socially awkward self-centered asshole. The protagonist is only a hero if you actively choose to ignore all the obvious signs of his descent into madness, the most obvious one being the thought that the demons are out to get him, the *only* sane person. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I find it quite annoying that people seem to long for a sympathetic protagonist and get mad when a game provides something that unsettles them. It seems there is a wide range of game-space that cannot ever be explored if people insist that games must be shallow and fun to be ever allowed. I do not think that the game is actively advocating for some social, moral or ethical values. It explores a topic that is contentious and not often talked about (a taboo). Some extreme free speech advocates hold that child porn should not be banned and the game may help their cause, but that's all. There were some claims that it may deter some people from abusing children and also some claims that it may actually encourage them to do it. However, it is unclear which way it will work and we will probably never be able to figure out this due to the scarcity of available research. Reading the thread, it appears that people have some hope that this would actually be considered as a package, e.g. if they remove the images that are technically illegal An outsider looking at that discussion - and not finding anything in our policies specifically rejecting content in this category - might unfortunately form the opinion that the chances of Debian accepting this package are higher than they actually are. Maybe my original subject line (about FTP master delegation) didn't quite hit the target, but does anybody think there is an appropriate place to document Debian's rejection of such content slightly more firmly so that even if the package is never formally uploaded (and therefore never formally rejected), it can be said that this package was definitely not within Debian policies? Could the FTP masters send an email on that thread clarifying this, a preemptive reject? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5322c6d6.8040...@pocock.com.au
Re: Unteralterbach (was: Re: clarify FTP master delegation?)
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said: Reading the thread, it appears that people have some hope that this would actually be considered as a package, e.g. if they remove the images that are technically illegal An outsider looking at that discussion - and not finding anything in our policies specifically rejecting content in this category - might unfortunately form the opinion that the chances of Debian accepting this package are higher than they actually are. I am of the opinion that, far and away, the thing most likely to confuse outsiders into thinking this sort of thing might be suitable for Debian is the amount of serious engagement with this subject. Gentle emails saying thanks for thinking of Debian, but no thanks, this isn't for us and then leaving it be would make the subject die much quicker, and generate far less of the negative publicity you fear, than this protracted, nonsensical debate. Maybe my original subject line (about FTP master delegation) didn't quite hit the target, but does anybody think there is an appropriate place to document Debian's rejection of such content slightly more firmly so that even if the package is never formally uploaded (and therefore never formally rejected), it can be said that this package was definitely not within Debian policies? Could the FTP masters send an email on that thread clarifying this, a preemptive reject? I don't think they need to. They don't declare that we don't manufacture cars, deal in conflict diamonds, send people into space or any of a number of other things that might be interesting to some people but lie outside of, and distract from, our goal. The ftp team has rejected far less distracting software in the past. I have every reason to believe they will continue to do the good job they have done in the past. Can we stop talking about this now and go back to doing what we do best? Cheers, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Unteralterbach (was: Re: clarify FTP master delegation?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 W dniu 12.03.2014 22:17, Vincent Cheng pisze: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: I don't believe Debian is the right place or mechanism to pick this fight. I think it would be a huge distraction from the point of the project, for basically exactly the reasons spelled out here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/msg00056.html and we should pass on this particular package. I think it would be great to have other packages of the same software type but with different content in Debian. Just not this particular content profile, which should be handled by people who know what they're getting into, can focus on this specific type of collision between free speech and other social issues, and don't have other goals that would be put at risk by getting into the middle of this fight. The above is written very carefully to try to avoid expressing any opinion about the merits of the content itself. Please don't try to read an opinion on that into the above. Agreed. Yet again I'm left to admire at how eloquently Russ can turn his thoughts into words. :) I started contributing to Debian because of its technical excellence and its adherence to FOSS principles, and I think that's what we're best known for. I strongly do not think that Debian is an appropriate platform for advocating for social, moral, or ethical values, nor do I think that Debian is the right place to making a statement on controversies relating to the above issues. The main benefit of the game when it comes to including it in Debian is probably its alleged artistic value. (I did not personally play the game so I cannot judge it). The Proponent for including in the Debian described this artistic value as: W dniu 12.03.2014 02:33, Nils Dagsson Moskopp pisze: A major point of the game is that whatever choice you make, the protagonist is neither a hero nor a sympathetic character. I think you can play the whole game without triggering any sex scene and the player character is still a xenophobic socially awkward self-centered asshole. The protagonist is only a hero if you actively choose to ignore all the obvious signs of his descent into madness, the most obvious one being the thought that the demons are out to get him, the *only* sane person. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I find it quite annoying that people seem to long for a sympathetic protagonist and get mad when a game provides something that unsettles them. It seems there is a wide range of game-space that cannot ever be explored if people insist that games must be shallow and fun to be ever allowed. I do not think that the game is actively advocating for some social, moral or ethical values. It explores a topic that is contentious and not often talked about (a taboo). Some extreme free speech advocates hold that child porn should not be banned and the game may help their cause, but that's all. There were some claims that it may deter some people from abusing children and also some claims that it may actually encourage them to do it. However, it is unclear which way it will work and we will probably never be able to figure out this due to the scarcity of available research. Greetings, Mateusz Jończyk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: My public key: 0x2C64C488 on hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTIYUTAAoJELLT9LcsZMSIwMIH/A25s0CuL4rMaGk1cPmD7CxW TzwAAWyUdUa+x18zD1MO0sGpr9ZM8D8lJJ5dHjUdb0BGLCgI7H15E9T6UAmueadN U3Sg4NgWRxDEYcR96p8Gtdjsew2kcO0XQN9E0MnQNRHHiXIkCSNh1+zbftqdVZNH Atl+p9WzsMB4Xa/8M18uBshsSNr3IdSTTdDDNBDe2l8PTwt1rTgG/Eq/WrqEXo/y cBkFcfDUBRuDI7NpbgexS907nhB8lvJZLhNQnJIkzfvn6DKBEK7k3hwHCAOJPu9u UdCfjreianCF1ENieAZTnZ6/eca1srqAQWSvlm3CDpc42CwrO+rpSWk2XfYDKU4= =0BLW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53218514.7070...@o2.pl
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
On 11/03/14 20:47, Neil McGovern wrote: On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote: There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP masters will accept a particular package For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest[0] reading up on #283578, and associated mails to the lists, LWN articles etc around the time. Neil [0] Or don’t. It’s probably better to do something more useful with your time. 283578 is far less controversial It was rejected softly using some very generic reasons The more controversial package being discussed now probably needs to be rejected more emphatically (and not simply using some technicality) In case it wasn't clear, my original email wasn't about restricting the powers of the FTP masters in this situation, rather it was about Debian asserting (either through FTP master policy or FTP delegation or whatever) the rejection of the type of content that is now up for discussion, whether it appears in NEW, as a subsequent update to any existing package or whatever. People are welcome to discuss this type of thing objectively on the email lists of course (that is free speech) but it probably needs to be clear that as a long-lived and widely used distribution, there is some written line in the sand about this type of content that we can refer to if it ever comes up as a hypothetical discussion again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5320152d@pocock.pro
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro writes: On 11/03/14 20:47, Neil McGovern wrote: On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote: There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP masters will accept a particular package For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest[0] reading up on #283578, and associated mails to the lists, LWN articles etc around the time. Neil [0] Or don’t. It’s probably better to do something more useful with your time. 283578 is far less controversial It was rejected softly using some very generic reasons The more controversial package being discussed now probably needs to be rejected more emphatically (and not simply using some technicality) Could you give a link to this package/discussion that you're alluding to? I understand that you apparently want to have an abstract discussion about this topic, but I'm really wondering what this is all about (and a quick glance over debian-legal at Gmane didn't show any obvious megathreads). Best, -Nikolaus -- Encrypted emails preferred. PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r467o136@rath.org
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:04:13AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: quick glance over debian-legal at Gmane didn't show any obvious megathreads). I don't know why gmane doesn't show it. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/ -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/03/14 18:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:04:13AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: quick glance over debian-legal at Gmane didn't show any obvious megathreads). I don't know why gmane doesn't show it. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/ This summarizes it: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/msg00024.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTIKUbAAoJEOm1uwJp1aqDmyQP/j+ogcUG39b7nFJVLsrVQoDn Nzg/kEi7pF7wWIRuwLuiEEa9CY72/y8Ledou78UN8BaftlP19g20Hu80uw+xvEGf dcEGRyaId/qX/Fw+/uej3dufeeyfDbxWIwxYEPlbV8hQxZzNds3GzwcqTlGu58/Q YZIudyQy2q5qGE4QF+4rCPf9SoU1TG5x3436rHWE29Mlg24O8L3uuT9Flj4attMp hwxRjxAniz6wH1YBctb+Wr7o7xUMpPAMO4bdb6TM3OYbZY5JBpkH9waXRTfZ6cz2 K9THX+8z49UW7QqycaL3ZlYRzhFHf2rsdY7J0c4m5fcBTm9FSxp/jAbXGiVr94cF c/OyrGeajkMoJ2y7OAc1LMy24jH8pNN0QUeXiTTlvAQr/C295eStr2WrRZTudev2 gMocZwFSnBzL4ZXXS9cI19IbmvnpL/L2qT/NbCr61/7S0Df3O24w8OI0MCgWrpv2 4EMraoqjS1LrBoAdRAU83uqBFN+nAJCHXU6Iba3x/pLQKu58U/ogs+CCFoNfYdxZ 6GByDaRFPnjy8fg0HxyYEsY3RLkNjxRSJ/3A1AEqR+mBJ/GBb7wyRcbqhpgmTtRE sb0SKoE0A0aLqKW4yf8vIcZRipdZ/tl1GOUK+H8R6R9Ibv+tJ4plM1gOCg6DsZ5m TV5jS4BlFra06CGgq46r =J6SY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5320a51b.1040...@pocock.com.au
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said: My impression is that the type of issue currently under discussion is not adequately specified in the FTP master delegation, it leaves the FTP masters to do more work on something that is actually quite complicated and has far-reaching ramifications for the project. It also means the FTP masters are in a situation where whatever they do, some people will feel they either did the wrong thing or some people will feel the FTP masters were wrong to make any decision without the project having a policy on the matter. Is there a problem with letting them get on with the job that they do? I'm sure they have the authority, the responsibility, and the common sense to do the right thing. Sorry if I'm not upset enough. I could write a letter to the Daily Mail if it'll help. Cheers, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes: On 12/03/14 18:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:04:13AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: quick glance over debian-legal at Gmane didn't show any obvious megathreads). I don't know why gmane doesn't show it. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/ This summarizes it: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/msg00024.html I don't believe Debian is the right place or mechanism to pick this fight. I think it would be a huge distraction from the point of the project, for basically exactly the reasons spelled out here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/msg00056.html and we should pass on this particular package. I think it would be great to have other packages of the same software type but with different content in Debian. Just not this particular content profile, which should be handled by people who know what they're getting into, can focus on this specific type of collision between free speech and other social issues, and don't have other goals that would be put at risk by getting into the middle of this fight. The above is written very carefully to try to avoid expressing any opinion about the merits of the content itself. Please don't try to read an opinion on that into the above. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87eh275kd3@windlord.stanford.edu
Unteralterbach (was: Re: clarify FTP master delegation?)
(Crossposting to debian-devel-games, where most of the discussion is being held about this) On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes: On 12/03/14 18:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:04:13AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: quick glance over debian-legal at Gmane didn't show any obvious megathreads). I don't know why gmane doesn't show it. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/ This summarizes it: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/msg00024.html I don't believe Debian is the right place or mechanism to pick this fight. I think it would be a huge distraction from the point of the project, for basically exactly the reasons spelled out here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/msg00056.html and we should pass on this particular package. I think it would be great to have other packages of the same software type but with different content in Debian. Just not this particular content profile, which should be handled by people who know what they're getting into, can focus on this specific type of collision between free speech and other social issues, and don't have other goals that would be put at risk by getting into the middle of this fight. The above is written very carefully to try to avoid expressing any opinion about the merits of the content itself. Please don't try to read an opinion on that into the above. Agreed. Yet again I'm left to admire at how eloquently Russ can turn his thoughts into words. :) I started contributing to Debian because of its technical excellence and its adherence to FOSS principles, and I think that's what we're best known for. I strongly do not think that Debian is an appropriate platform for advocating for social, moral, or ethical values, nor do I think that Debian is the right place to making a statement on controversies relating to the above issues. Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tA_57=gdeugb1t7_jl3xwfo_9x5lhx4svymxkudgou...@mail.gmail.com
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
http://bugs.debian.org/535645 is perhaps relevant: 2. reaffirms the ftp team's authority to exercise their own judgement in deciding to remove packages from the archive, whenever this is done for reasons consistent with the twin mandates to keep the archive operational and to support the archive needs of the Debian Project. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote: There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP masters will accept a particular package The FTP team wiki[1] links to a delegation email[2] The delegation email is very light, it just says they are Accepting and rejecting packages that enter the NEW and byhand queues without any reference to the policies they should apply The wiki talks about their policies (which are well known to most developers), with some comments about the familiar NEW queue: This allows (FTP masters) to check the copyright of the package and ensure that the package meets certain basic levels of correctness. ... In the case of the package potentially leaving Debian liable to lawsuits, it is unlikely to be accepted. Manual NEW checking is required in order to ensure that uploaded packages meet certain basic standards. In the absence of the NEW check, it would be much easier for packages with legal issues or those with gross packaging defects to enter the main Debian archive. The comment about lawsuits is very generic - does the earlier sentence mean that it is just copyright lawsuits or all types of lawsuits? It doesn't specify jurisdiction (e.g. are they checking that the packages don't violate US export laws or Russian gay propaganda laws or what?) My impression is that the type of issue currently under discussion is not adequately specified in the FTP master delegation, it leaves the FTP masters to do more work on something that is actually quite complicated and has far-reaching ramifications for the project. It also means the FTP masters are in a situation where whatever they do, some people will feel they either did the wrong thing or some people will feel the FTP masters were wrong to make any decision without the project having a policy on the matter. The absence of policy on this also has other ramifications: for example, a DD could upload a non-controversial v1.0 of a package, receive FTP master approval and then later v2.0 comes along with controversial content and according to the wiki, it will be automatically accepted. So the DD is then making the decision about whether to upload the content and if their decision is not consistent with what the FTP masters would have done, is the DD at fault? If we do expect DDs to behave in a certain way in these situations, should that be documented? My own feeling is that Debian could consider a veto policy: that a petition of say 10% or 20% of DDs can veto any package or other content and that such decisions will be publicly recorded (unlike other censorship regimes that are based on secrecy). 1. https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/FTPMaster 2. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/10/msg4.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/531f53fd.6060...@pocock.com.au -- :wq
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
Daniel Pocock writes (clarify FTP master delegation?): The FTP team wiki[1] links to a delegation email[2] The delegation email is very light, it just says they are Accepting and rejecting packages that enter the NEW and byhand queues without any reference to the policies they should apply That means that it is for the FTP team to set that policy. The wiki talks about their policies (which are well known to most developers), with some comments about the familiar NEW queue: AFAIAA this is the best description of the FTP team policy: https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html My impression is that the type of issue currently under discussion is not adequately specified in the FTP master delegation, it leaves the FTP masters to do more work on something that is actually quite complicated and has far-reaching ramifications for the project. It also means the FTP masters are in a situation where whatever they do, some people will feel they either did the wrong thing or some people will feel the FTP masters were wrong to make any decision without the project having a policy on the matter. I am very happy that the FTP team are making these kind of decisions for the project. I definitely don't want the DPL to intervene (for example, by making the FTP team delegation more prescriptive). The absence of policy on this also has other ramifications: for example, a DD could upload a non-controversial v1.0 of a package, receive FTP master approval and then later v2.0 comes along with controversial content and according to the wiki, it will be automatically accepted. This is surely done for convenience, not as a matter of policy. If you are aware of an instance where a package which has already gone through NEW has been replaced by a new version which the FTP team would have rejected, you should surely bring this to the FTP team's attention (probably by filing a bug). Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21279.25014.252749.830...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
On 11/03/14 20:19, Ian Jackson wrote: Daniel Pocock writes (clarify FTP master delegation?): The FTP team wiki[1] links to a delegation email[2] The delegation email is very light, it just says they are Accepting and rejecting packages that enter the NEW and byhand queues without any reference to the policies they should apply That means that it is for the FTP team to set that policy. The wiki talks about their policies (which are well known to most developers), with some comments about the familiar NEW queue: AFAIAA this is the best description of the FTP team policy: https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Thanks for pointing that out - but that, too, says very little about the package in question other than possibly: trying to keep the archive legal What is legal in the US (as in free speech) may be banned in the UK or Australia for example My impression is that the type of issue currently under discussion is not adequately specified in the FTP master delegation, it leaves the FTP masters to do more work on something that is actually quite complicated and has far-reaching ramifications for the project. It also means the FTP masters are in a situation where whatever they do, some people will feel they either did the wrong thing or some people will feel the FTP masters were wrong to make any decision without the project having a policy on the matter. I am very happy that the FTP team are making these kind of decisions for the project. I definitely don't want the DPL to intervene (for example, by making the FTP team delegation more prescriptive). My email was not a call for the DPL to jump in - the FTP team could actually suggest something (or maybe just add something extra to that FAQ) The absence of policy on this also has other ramifications: for example, a DD could upload a non-controversial v1.0 of a package, receive FTP master approval and then later v2.0 comes along with controversial content and according to the wiki, it will be automatically accepted. This is surely done for convenience, not as a matter of policy. If you are aware of an instance where a package which has already gone through NEW has been replaced by a new version which the FTP team would have rejected, you should surely bring this to the FTP team's attention (probably by filing a bug). Well, if the REJECT-FAQ was the criteria that a DD was referring to, then they may well interpret what is legal in their own personal location/context and feel entitled to upload it - but it may make Debian illegal for users and developers in other locations. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/531f64fa.40...@pocock.com.au
Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote: There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP masters will accept a particular package For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest[0] reading up on #283578, and associated mails to the lists, LWN articles etc around the time. Neil [0] Or don’t. It’s probably better to do something more useful with your time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/07980463-b56d-4a40-9443-9c6b04c3b...@halon.org.uk
