On 11133 March 1977, Michael Meskes wrote: Not rating the act of adding/removing maintainers in an upload, just one thing: > But he not just added himself, he also changed some packaging stuff and > upgraded to a new upstream version. This seems to be done in a hurry as > he missed some licensing issues. We now have several files in the > archive with the following license: > ; Copyright (C) 2006-2007 innotek GmbH > ; innotek GmbH confidential > ; All rights reserved > Uh, ouch, shouldn't be there, right? That's why I CC ftpmasters. Work is > underway to create a valid 1.5.0 package, but there's a reason why we > first fixed stuff in the 1.4.0 version. Since this may take another day > or two, I wonder whether out admins would like to react and remover this > version asap. > As both me and also Patrick are in contact with upstream, this is a > pending issue solved in hopefully short time. NO. There is absolutely no reason to *knowingly* upload a non-free tarball, even named ".dfsg". People doing that should immediately resign. Especially not after that one package here got some 3 or 4 rejects due to non-free / license problems. > Upstream is generally cooperative and understands the problems, hence I > see this a bit more relaxed (for the next few days only, until it's > sorted out). However, if ftp-master do disagree, I'll can re-upload > 1.4.0, superseeding the 1.5.0 upload. "Yay, Upstream understands the problem, lets upload non-free crap to main" does not work. Fix it. -- bye Joerg [188.8.131.52 direkt nach 184.108.40.206] <HE> Linus muss Gentooler hassen. <formorer> wieso? <HE> Naja, die dürften ihre optimierten Kernel gerade fertig gebaut haben und müssen jetzt aus prompter Versionitis auf das Ausprobieren verzichten und den neuen kompilieren...
Description: PGP signature