Hi, Steve: On Monday 15 November 2010 21:34:03 Steve Kemp wrote: [...] > Debian policy wouldn't arbitrarily try to mandate how the software > we include is written because we simply have no control over that.
Not to state a position but I think what you say's basically irrelevant: Debian has no control about how people distribute their software either but still Debian strongly stablishes that "these" kind of licenses are acceptable while "those" kind of licenses are not. It would be absolutly within Debian abilities to stablish, say, that only software developed in C were to be acceptable (to name just the stupidest thing that it came to my mind). > Sure we can and do patch some software, but to implement your > suggestion we'd have to patch many many many pieces of unrelated > software and that is not a simple thing. Again, that's just in line with other things already being done: packaging 10.000 "programs" it's not a simple thing either but that's exactly what Debian does. > Nor would maintaining those patches be easy. Only those that weren't accepted upstream should have to be maintained. > (Not that I disapprove of your general idea; but consider would *you* > personally download the source to 100 applications, update them to log > in a consistent fashion, post the patches to the appropriate project's > discussion lists (if they even exist), then keep them updated for > a year or two? Even if you did who would handle the other few > thousand application binaries..) Consider would *you* personally download the source to 100 applications, massage them so they are acceptable within Debian policy bounds, etc. then keept them updated for a year or two? Well, that's exactly what Debian does while, obviously, being an impossibility for you alone, so it seems you have a non-argument. Cheers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201011171538.35837.jesus.nava...@undominio.net
