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

Re: xfig-doc has license problems in examples

Scripsit Alexander List <alexlist@ees2.oulu.fi>

First and most important:

    *NEVER* *EVER* crosspost directly between submit@bugs.debian.org
    and mailing lists!

Doing this means that mailing list subscribers who just do a "wide
reply" to the posting will send their reply to sumbit@bugs.debian.org,
thereby opening a *new* unrelated bug. That is Bad.

Others who feel inclined to respond to Alexander, please take note!

The Right way to do this is described in the Bug Tracking System
|   The right way to do this is to use the X-Debbugs-CC header. Add a line
|   like this to your message's mail header (not to the pseudo header with
|   the Package field):
|      X-Debbugs-CC: other-list@cosmic.edu

Doing it the Right way also means that the copy that gets sent to the
mailing list will have the bug tracking number in the header, making
the following discussion on the mailing list easily archived in the BTS.

> M8-AGS-Camo.fig.gz:4 0 0 50 0 16 14 0.0000 4 195 8880 7560 2610 Permission
> granted for educational and other non-commercial use only. (c) 2001, Carlo
> Kopp\001

> This seems to be a violation of

> http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

No real consensus on how much of the DFSG applies to data files (as
opposed to software that can be executed in some way) has ever been
reached or reported on debian-legal.

My _personal_ opinion is that since this is not a "purely-data" package
users can reaonably expect that everything in it, except for actual
legalese language, is more or less DFSG-free. As a service to users
who wants to depend on such guarantees, the example files in question
should probably be removed from the .deb distributed in main.

Henning Makholm         "Khanivore is climbing out of its life-support pod."

Reply to: