On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 03:28:46PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote: > I understand that the latest RFCs have a license that might probably > be intended to, but clearly be interpreted as _not_ to comply with the DFSG. > (See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=92810&repeatmerged=yes) > If this interpretation is general consensus between the wise men of > debian-legal then maybe the DPL should mail ISC if they change their > license or at least clarify it, as proposed in the bug report. I don't think this is a responsibility that can be passed off on the DPL. If someone cares about this package being in main, he should mail the ISC himself. Personally, I'm not too concerned; if I need an RFC, I type 'RFC ####' into my google search bar, which is guaranteed to be more effective than looking for it in a static package in an OS with a 2-year release cycle. > Anyway, as I don't like to see this package dropped from woody I propose > that the maintainer, or I (as NMU) simple re-uploads the package into > non-free. I know that then it's officially not "in Debian", too, but at least > most distributers and FTP mirrors will carry it. Given the short time left, that seems to be the only remaining option if people want this package in woody. The maintainer may not care about the letter of the license, but others do; and it's a safe bet that this package will be removed from testing if the license issue is not resolved soon. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpGbaaDMlUTv.pgp
Description: PGP signature