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

Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:15:45 +0100, Sven wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:17:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> > > The question is that we will block this package from enterring
> > > debian because of a clause which may, maybe, also have blocked
> > > other packages which we would not like being removed. But again,
> > > it can be dealt with at another time.
> > If you know of any, we should discuss them.  Are you saying the rule
> > is being applied unfairly?  If so, we need to have the details so they
> > can be discussed.
> Sorry, i have not time to investigate, but i am sure many of the
> documentation we have cause problems, and we didn't look into it too
> much, because, well, it is documentation and not software. Also i guess
> this was the reason about some mails a while ago which looked into
> documentation issues and licences.  Also i think many of our
> documentation may fail DFSG 2, about source code issuses.

For instance, many (most) of the documents included the tetex-base
package fail DFSG 2, and many don't have explicit licenses.
Bug #131191.  I'm sure there are many more such problems throughout

	Dylan Thurston

Attachment: pgpHOBHjAq4g5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: