Re: Packages containing RFCs
Simon Josefsson <email@example.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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>