Re: Bug#385115: Sorry, no more RC bugs for non-free data in main (was: Bug#385115: chromium-data: Unclear license for some files)
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
The latter implies that all packages should have RC bugs on them because we
should not believe that any of the licenses and copyrights are what upstream
says they are. How is that reasonable?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it is still not fully understood
what I mean.
I will try to explain the better I can. I'm not saying exactly this:
"We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X is true."
Instead, I'm trying to say this:
"I see that A says X+Y, not only X, and Y is so grave by itself to
kick immediately the package from main until solved."
If upstream had never said Y, I would never reported this bug, I would
never worried abut its legal status, and I would probably never
noticed the "Copyright by Corel" string.
Now, the question is, how are this kind of things (Y) supposed to be
handled? You say that it should be safe unless proven to be not. I
believe that the fact that Y exists it is just enough to be
incompatible with Debian policies, and the package should be blocked
immediately until clarified by upstream and corrected.
In case that Y is supposed to be handled the way you say, I will sadly
accept it, but I beg for policies to be updated. I currently feel
badly fooled by Debian free software claims, as I think they are not
true in practice. Sorry to say that, but it is just the truth on what
I believe now.
I honestly hope my position is clear now.