On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 12:59:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think the TC has many reasonable options.
> * You could say that you think you aren't authorised, by the
> constitution, to overrule a decision on DFSG-ness, and invite the
> petitioners to consider a GR.
In any case the TC is entitled to offer advice in the form of
structuring the discussion and advising/helping in getting a decision.
A large part of the problem seems to be a lack of understanding what
terms like "browserified" or "minified" actually mean, and what
Perl's Configure or SQLite are other examples of code with similar
issues currently in Debian, and it would be helpful if the TC would
start by gathering an overview of the different cases and how they
are similar or different.
> * With respect to Perl's Configure, one possible answer that has not
> been considered is to declare that you agree that there is a
> software freedom problem, but to distinguish the proper action with
> respect to Configure on the basis of several possible factors. For
> example, one might argue that an exception should be made in the
> same way as we have collectively previously made exceptions for
> certain freedom problems; or that while the Perl situation is a
> problem, people agree that it should be fixed, and that it does not
> justify introducing new problems; or whatever.
Not installing firmware by default is causing an enormous amount of
trouble for users of Debian, if Debian wants to make an exception
anywhere then look no further.
For Perl's Configure I do not see so far why this would be a problem in
The most extreme requirement I could imagine would be to strip the
Configure from the source tarball and ship a metaconfig checkout
from the commit used for this release of Perl.
And even implementing this most extreme requirement wouldn't look
like a huge problem to me.
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed