Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Feel free to modify the severity; I simply set it according to policy to start with. :-PDon't bother reopening these reports, they shall be just as summarily closed.
There's nothing wrong with asking upstream to change its license (and I wish you luck). The single biggest identified problem clause (in the no-Invariant Section no-Cover Text license):
>You may not use >technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further >copying of the copies you make or distribute."Technical measures" is not defined. The natural interpretation includes storing a copy encrypted, on an encrypted filesystem, or simply non-world-readable. This applies to copies you *make privately*, not just to copies you distribute. So users like me can't make private copies and store them -r.
It is likely that the FSF will eventually be willing to change this. If you feel that you are making progress with getting this changed, certainly you can avoid removing the FDL'ed material in anticipation of it being fixed. However, RMS has stated that he's not going to consider *any* FDL revisions until he finishes the GPL v.3, which is anticipated to take perhaps a year, so you'll have to get his priorities changed. I doubt that it serves Debian's users to have non-free material in 'main' for years.