* Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) [131028 10:39]: > As a side note, I think upstart’s CLA dismisses it as software > of choice for our core system. > I know it’s not the only important piece of software in Debian > with a CLA. I still stand on this point. I have experienced a > real world CUPS nightmare because of Apple’s CLA, and I would be > all for ditching CUPS as default too if we had a decent > alternative.
It is important for us that we can identify and fix bugs in our packages, and that we could forward bug reports to upstream and have a good working relationship with them (and allow them to pull our patches). However, lots of packages in Debian require copyright assignments to bring patches upstream. This includes as central packages as gcc. One could argue that the assignment policies between Ubuntu and FSF are different enough that it matters. On the other hand, I don't see why this is a blocker for us. The upstart maintainers in Debian will work on bug reports and proposed patches even without copyright assignment (as do the gcc maintainers), and that is what is required for us. Of course I would prefer if the copyright assignment policy would be changed, but that's something else. So, IMHO this topic is not a blocker for upstart (which doesn't on the other hand automatically imply upstart is the right answer - this depends on other questions and answers within this discussion). Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
