Thanks a lot Mo for your work on this! I have two quick comments:
- In 2000, Debian's role in the relicensing of the Qt library was well recoginsed. There are battles we can win. https://web.archive.org/web/20180324223759/http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/2269/1/ (Link from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Public_License#cite_note-3) - Of course, chances will by higher if more people and projects join us. One main argument against Mo's proposal is the cost difficulty of hosting the raw data. For the models that are in Debian at the moment in Trixie, it is hard to think that the problem will not be solved if it really matters to the Free Software commmunity in general. - Even for retraining, I would be interested to hear a comparison between the environmental footprint of one Debian release, including all the continuous integration tests including mass rebuilds, autopgktests, reproducible build tests etc, plus the distribution via mirrors and CDNs, a couple of Debconfs, etc, compared with one or few retainings of all the models we actually ship, to check reproducibility of the output or at least the user experience… - Amendments or counter proposals that contain an exemption for time (releases, years…), either broadly or limited only to software that is already in Trixie, etc., are cheap to write, accept and act on. Sorry if it has been already discussed. I will not have time to read the whole thread (summaries welcome). Have a nice week-end! Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from work, https://fediscience.org/@charles_plessy Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
