On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:19:51 -0400, Stephen van Egmond wrote: > On a practical level this issue is a colossal waste of time. We have > established:
debian isn't solely guided by practicality, but instead by more fundamentally interesting principles. > 1) The package is useful > 2) The identity of the copyright holder is ambiguous, even to themselves > 3) The probability of action to enforce a license violation claim is > basically nil > > Removing the package from distribution is just about the worst possible > outcome. Do whatever the hell you want, but do not vote for, agitate for, or > keep reopening bugs while insisting that, this action be taken. under what authority do you have to issue such an oppressive directive? i am simply advocating further discussion on the matter. i've simply listed removing the package among a list of possible solutions to the problem. please re-read my messages to better understand my intent. if this bug gets marked squeeze-ignore or whatever, i'm fine with that, i just want an appropriate dialog beforehand. > I would think that Fedora taking some action is a scant endorsement of that > course of action. it is however useful as point of reference. mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
