----- "Steve Langasek" <[email protected]> wrote: > With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are > non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with > a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers to accept your > *interpretation* of the foundation documents that led to the override, short > of modifying the foundation document to include that interpretation. But > such modifications definitely shouldn't happen without the express intent of > the proposer.
Don't we need to take into consideration that the release managers' interpretation of the DFSG is the most binding one in the project? I understand that there is a motivation by the release manager's to insure that the release is both technologically stable and timely but shouldn't the release managers be equally concerned with the "legal stability" of the release? Putting on the corporate user hat, I would hope that running stable would give me the highest level of protection against inadvertently running software that is violating its license. A serious license problem could potentially be every bit as disruptive and expensive to our users as a technical problem. I think this factor is really what the discussion is about and why release continues to be a sticking point year after year. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com [email protected] - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
