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

Re: I want doc-rfc in Woody! (license issues)

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

Reply to: