[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packages containing RFCs

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:

> Here's the rest of my original e-mail:

> I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
> believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.

> Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
> problem, and the list below is what I found.  It is not that large,
> and better than I would expect.

> Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better
> way to handle this?  What severity should I use?

> Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC
> are (I believe) in the public domain.

Right, not all RFCs are covered under a non-free license.  Most of them
probably are.  Some of them probably have free licenses.  Some of them
have very murky copyright status.

I would certainly welcome severity: serious bugs on any of my packages
that contain non-free docs, including RFCs that are not in the public
domain or otherwise have a free license.  My opinion is that a mass bug
filing is warranted if the person doing the filing has looked over the RFC
in question and double-checked that it really does have a non-free

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: