Re: libpcap and libnet-pcap-perl
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 09:28:14PM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 03:45:35PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > one is a licensing problem which has been
> > around forever and as such should be ignorable for the purposes of
> > moving the new glibc to testing,
>
> OK, this one looks a bit ugly...
>
> 1) On the point of the GNU Free doc license: if the -legal people decide
> that the docs are indeed non-free, then what are we going to do? Re-write
> parts of glibc? Split up the package? (We can't have main depend on
> non-free, if that's where it ends up.)
The only thing we can do is negotiate for the GFDL to meet our
definition of free. Given how much of our base system comes from the GNU
Project, it's not sustainable for us to disagree with them over the
basic freedom of their primary documentation licence of choice. This
*has* to be resolved one way or the other.
I tend to think that filing bugs against individual packages about it is
not the correct approach for the moment. Last time I checked the
consensus on -legal wasn't clear to me (although I'm not subscribed
there any more), and I think it should be clear to everyone before
setting fire to maintainers' feet over something that's still under
contention.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: