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

Re: System V Code removed from XFS

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

Reply to: