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
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)