On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Enrico Zini wrote: > In this view, I see two problems with your GR: > > 1. It needs a separate vote to affirm "we happen to need it".
Yes, that's by design. IMO such a exception to the SC/DFSG should be addressed explicitely by a GR doing exactly that and specifically setting aside the source requirements for specific works (or classes of work) in main. > 2. It would make the exception etch-specific, just like we > previously made a sarge-specific exception, and now we have to > vote on the same issue again. I feel this issue is subtly different from the sarge question, but regardless, since it's something that compromises our ethics, I think it's good for us to revisit the decision each time and put pressure on ourselves to resolve the problem so that we don't have to compromise. Plus, we have to have a few good topics to flame about or the lists get boring. > I understand that the urgent issue is "are we ok in having > sourceless firmware in etch?", and I think it's a waste of time to > vote a GR that doesn't address that. The current GR is asking "Does the Social Contract/DFSG require source for programmatic works in main which do not run on the CPU?" as opposed to this question. I believe the answer to the current GR's question is yes, which is why I proposed this amendment. I agree that the question you're interested in answering is the more important question, which, so far, is the question which has not been asked or a GR proposed to deal with. [Presumably, it is to be proposed if my option succeeds.] In framing my amendment, I have assumed that this question was orthogonal, and so I've not dealt with it. Don Armstrong -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in "The Conspiracy of Catiline" by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
