Keith Packard writes ("Bug#727708: init system discussion status"):
> In contrast, upstart has a developer community limited to Canonical
> employees and others who are able and willing to sign the onerous CLA
> associated with that software. [...]You said on IRC that the CLA was an important factor for you. I'm going to make an attempt to persuade you that this is not a big problem for Debian. Firstly, I should say that I think the CLA is utterly ridiculous. I want to be completely clear that like almost everyone else in this conversation, I would certainly not sign it. But: I think you overestimate the likelihood of Debian being on the losing end of a fork. If we adopt upstart as default in Debian, I expect we will accumulate a number of important (CLA-less, obviously) patches in the Debian package. Debian will be an attractive place even for non-Debian users to submit patches for the precise reason that we don't insist on unjust copyright arrangements. In fact, I would expect much of the serious development to take place in Debian's version. Finally, we shouldn't be afraid of the scenario where the Debian version ends up being de facto the upstream. We have become the upstream for numerous programs of comparable size. And, to put my time where my mouth is, I'm willing to step up and contribute patches and help maintain the Debian upstart package. Personaly I think upstart has the right approach and I think improving it sounds like fun. Like Andi, I think the risk to our autonomy from upstream is much lower in the case of upstart than systemd. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
