On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:16:05AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 09:24:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > The problem with this argument is, of course, that the code isn't > > non-free; "it appears that most or all of the System V code fragments we > > found had previously been placed in the public domain." > > Sorry, couldn't resist. Damn SCO. > While System V may in *truth* be in the public domain, that's not a > legally *safe* position to hold, at least in the United States. > As much as I'd like to belief SCO is a paper tiger, I'm uncomfortable > with the thought of exposing our users to attack from SCO's barratrous > attorneys, especially if the upstream authors of one of our packages > appear to be behaving in a manner consistent with a similar discomfort > on their part. I certainly agree that we should be removing the disputed code; that much is dictated by our policy of not unnecessarily deviating from upstream sources. I'm inclined to think that an update to stable is not called for, given that the code is merely *disputed*, not known to be infringing, and the dispute is not with us; and because uploading a modified version of the source to stable-proposed-updates has no immediate effect on our users' and redistributors' liability. I also think that, given the relative scales involved (2 days vs. 10), there is no burning need for an urgency=high upload -- debian-legal could easily double the wait time by dragging out the decision with one of its famous threads ;P -- but I don't see any reason why urgency=high would draw censure. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgptZqvVKl2cX.pgp
Description: PGP signature