On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:40:49 +0000 (UTC) Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> Hello,
> This was about the recent change of license in a36 that was widely
> covered in the news, e.g. lwn or heise.de
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/006193.html
>
> We (cdrools Debian maintainers) were in indeed private contact with
> Joerg about this and successfully managed to resolve this, a38 undid
> the newly introduced non-freeness issue, the code in question
> (linuxcheck()) is not encumbered by a specific license anymore, it may
> be removed like anything else.
>
> This is resolved and completely orthogonal to this thread, so please
> ignore it.
So, IIUC, debian bug #265546
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=265546) is related to
linuxcheck() only.
I instead thought that it was related to the whole bunch of weird
restrictions that go well beyond the GPL license, and that it was filed
when the non-freeness was even worse and then marked resolved when one
of the issues went away.
So, since I noticed that many issues were still there, I wondered if the
bug should be reopened.
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Well, if I *now* understand the situation correctly, we have version
2.01a38 with *another* set of non-freeness and non-distributability
issues to deal with...
So probably a different bug should be filed, at least if sid already
includes version 2.01a38...
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes?
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape.
Attachment:
pgpjjuIpNCL6V.pgp
Description: PGP signature