Re: Packages containing RFCs
Justin Pryzby <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:30AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
>> believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
>> Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
>> problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
>> and better than I would expect.
>> Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better
>> way to handle this? What severity should I use?
>> Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC
>> are (I believe) in the public domain.
> I *swear* that one of the project documents said something highly
> relevant, to the effect of "nonfree material might be included in a
> package in `main' if it is well-separated, and not required for the
> operation of the package". I can't find it, so I'd appreciate it if
> someone would point it out to me .. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that it
> made explicit mention of RFCs and some humour files included with
I think the humour files in emacs (that doesn't have a clear and free
license) are being removed, so perhaps that text has gone away.
Anyway, if someone knows about that text, it would be quite
interesting to see where it was written and why (if at all) it has