Bug#675167: Bug#674844: Bug#674850: Bug#675167: Bug#674850: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute"
On 21/07/12 15:49, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Aside from the question of whether the content can actually have
> authorship asserted over it in the first place, we've historically
> treated licensing issues in stable where the situation has subsequently
> been clarified in unstable as documentation updates which don't qualify
> for an update in stable on their own.
Thanks for the clarification.
> Particularly as the package in stable is in non-free I'm afraid I'm not
> currently convinced that the proposed changes should be applied in
That's fine by me. I only prepared the diff should the release team feel
an update was required. (IMHO the files in question aren't
copyrightable, but that's another issue).
Feel free to tag as wontfix/notabug/whatever you see fit.