> If both upstream and a significant portion of users strongly disagree with a maintainer's judgement, then how is their role as maintainer justified? By thei

> If both upstream and a significant portion of users strongly disagree with a maintainer's judgement, then how is their role as maintainer justified? By their making the decision they think is best and that agrees with the philosophy of the distribution they're maintaining the package for? I'm glad they don't have to justify their existences to upstream and every "significant portion[...] of users." > It's KeePassXC's job to secure the software and produce features that fulfill users' needs as they see fit. You don't control free software after you've licensed and distributed it that way. The entire point of the concept is to make calls like this about anti-features. KeePassXC can feel free to comment on it, like anyone else. They can demand that Debian make available the modified sources. They can revoke any license to the use of trademarks. That's it. If users only want to deal with KeePassXC, they can compile it themselves or use a portable version. If KeePassXC wants to deal with Debian users directly, they can host a package repository for their canonical version.