Re: picasm license
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 06:28:38PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> <after more fooling around getting the source packages for potato>
>
> The license you quote does seem free to me. Apparently it is new
> with version 1.6 of picasm. The one in slink still has the non-free
> license I found.
>
> The Debian changelog provides some clues as to why it is still in
> non-free. The new license was added in a non-maintainer upload.
> Presumably the one who did that decided that the package being in
> non-free was not critical enough to move it to contrib behind
> the back of the official maintainer (who apparently hasn't touched
> the package for most of three years but has not officially orphaned
> it, either).
What do we do in such circumstances ?
hijack ?
autoorphanization ?
announcement ?
This is important to have all packages being maintained.
Reply to: