On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:02:49 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 01:37:37AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Any work released under such a license can go in main, provided that
> >
> > * there is no indication that the copyright holder interprets the
> > license in some unusual (and non-free) ways
> >
> > * the work is unencumbered by actively enforced software patents
>
> We don't generally seek affirmative evidence that these are the case
> before accepting something into main. We simply may decide to remove
> a package from main if either of them prove to be false.
That's right, of course.
What I meant is that a package under such a license cannot go in main if
we come to know that the above issues hold.
Debian will not actively investigate such possibilities (e.g. by
contacting upstream and asking), but if there is evidence of the above
odd situations (e.g. because upstream states it in some "license
clarifications"), the package doesn't belong in main, even if the
license looks exactly like the one of many other main packages...
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpbWXcpZ8kwl.pgp
Description: PGP signature