The mentions in the "offending" files mentioned in this bug report are very clearly copy and paste that was made without thinking by the people who did so. A very good example are the wo_SN, ca_AD, eu_FR (and maybe a few others), which I am the author of. So, yes, I am one of those people who didn't even imagine that people would consider locale files as somethign that could have a licence? It was definitely not my intent to give a licence to a collection of information that indeed belongs to the public domain. And, still, I blindly and carelessly copied information from another locale. So, I wonder whether the following: # Distribution and use is free, also for # commercial purposes. should be considered a "licence". So, really, considering this as RC for files where even the fact that a licence can apply to, is highly debatable. I therefore suggest that an exception is granted for squeeze to give time to "fix" this: - either by rewriting the offending locales....which would indeed be just copy and paste, as such information has, by definition, only one form - or by "relicensing" them (which I'll do immediately for locales I wrote, putting them in the public domain). Release team, would you be OK to grant an exception for locales ad bug #555168? The alternative would of course be to downgrade this bug to severoty important (imho, it should be "minor", even). --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature