Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:05:01AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mit, 27 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - If a component of a package lists a non-free license, but is distributed
> > as part of a larger work that includes a blanket license statement,
> > resulting in ambiguity about which license the component is distributed
> > under, the bug is not RC with the condition that the maintainer is
> > expected to seek a clarification.
> This would mean that a priori we can assume that these bugs are not RC
> for TeX live, as this is a blanket license statement of following the
> DFSG in inclusion of packages (plus GFDL documents which have already
> been removed from the packages).
A statement that "the work must be DFSG-compliant to be accepted" is not the
same thing as saying "this tarball is distributed under license <foo>".
It's the latter that introduces ambiguity.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.