On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:45:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain
that expecific exception and must say so in the
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
- Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
- Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both
seem to temporary override the Foundation
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I have no problem with considering the following to be position
statements:
- Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
- Allow releases with known DFSG violations
They are interpreting the DFSG/SC.
Actually, they are interpreting
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:00:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
- Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
- Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
It does not say how to interprete
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I have no problem with considering the following to be position
statements:
- Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
- Allow releases with known DFSG violations
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:49PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
This is an interpretation of the SC, not the DFSG, and a perfectly valid
position statement.
That can be seen as an interpretation of SC #4 (our priorities are
our
6 matches
Mail list logo
