Yes, you can. Whether the package should be removed or not, that's for the
ftp-masters to decide. That such kinds of bug reports could be done in a
nicer way, well, that's probably true, but still...
Well, i have the impression that there is a false claim. I have been reading
this thread, and
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:41:00AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Branden Robinson:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:23:00PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 02:55]:
I fail to see why debian-legal's undelegated status is at all relevant
given our current leadership philsophy.
The difference is that
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In any event, the Technical Committee and Project Secretary are not and
cannot be delegates under the Constitution[1].
Additionally, most port- and CDD-maintainers are not delegates (and they
certainly are not delegates in their
* Branden Robinson:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
decision
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 02:55]:
Okay, fair enough. Archive administration is done by those who roll up
their sleeves and do it -- the people on other end of
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
By the same token, public DFSG-based analysis of licenses and how they are
applied to the
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
decision lies with the archive maintainers.
I see. Where are the archive maintainers'
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.07.12.1409 +0200]:
IIRC, Martin mentioned this the last time you asked about
delegations, too.
Thanks Colin.
I would appreciate if this issue was left to myself. I am working
with the author through the problems and hope to get libcwd freed.
I
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as licenses go, if the consensus in debian-legal is that something is
non-free, you lose.
Where in official Debian documents (e.g. constitution, policy
manual, etc.) do you see such a
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
decision lies with the archive maintainers.
I see. Where are the archive maintainers' official delegations?
--
G. Branden Robinson| The
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:31:43PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
It is not. But as far as I have gathered so far, once d-l gets into a
consensus that something is not DFSG-compliant, it gets quite difficult to
convince someone that matters (one of the ftp-masters) that you're
* Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]:
debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses
to move this package to non-free; therefore, I am requesting its
removal in an effort to lower the number of RC bugs. See the -legal
discussion [0].
Sorry, but this
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]:
debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses
to move this package to non-free;
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]:
debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses
to move this package to non-free; therefore, I am requesting its
removal in an effort to lower the number of RC bugs. See
14 matches
Mail list logo
