Debian: too free?

Posted Apr 29, 2004 2:32 UTC (Thu) by dbharris (guest, #19820)
In reply to: Debian: too free? by corbet
Parent article: Debian: too free?

I think AJ's message was sensationalistic, and I believe this article is an extension of that. Eight of nine paragraphs was devoted to describing how this will affect Debian and its releases, when by the time it's all done, chances are that it won't. Especially the mention of a fork. Nobody has brought up any such thing, and UserLinux is an initiative by Bruce Perens who hasn't been active in Debian for years (and it's worth noting that he was involved in creating the origial Social Contract, which was still in place when he started UserLinux :).

As far as the GFDL is concerned, I think saying things or quoting like "as witnessed by the fact that Debian is fighting over documentation licenses that have passed muster with Richard Stallman" and "If instead, it turns out there are significant numbers of people who believe their participation in Debian is really more about proving that they are Holier Than Stallman" is implicitly implying that the GFDL is the kind of license people would expect from the FSF, when it's proven to be quite the opposite as you yourself have said.

Your reply to my post seems at odds with the article itself.

Debian: too free?

Posted Apr 29, 2004 9:16 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link]

The article is a good summary of the discussion that has been occurring on the debian-devel mailing list. I only quibble with this sentence:

   Anthony Towns has let it be known that the new social contract
   will delay things further.

This omits several condition that AJT added. AJT did say:

   As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these
   things removed from the Debian system -- ie main.

but he went on to say:

   So, if the technical committee would like to comment on this issue,
   take the decision out of my hands, or overrule any decision I might
   otherwise make, now would be a good time. Otherwise, if folks want
   to take up a [General Resolution] to do likewise, now is a good
   time to start thinking about it.

The way I read it, AJT is not so much announcing a major delay as he is warning that there will be a major delay UNLESS he is given some way of escaping the restrictions of the newly disambiguated Social Contract for the purposes of releasing Sarge. A General Resolution of the kind he suggests here has already been proposed and seconded.