On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Hi all!
Hi!
>
> 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.
Good, I tagged your bug nonfree-doc rfc as user
debian-release@lists.debian.org, as kindly requested on
http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation
>
> 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.
Thanks for digging further into this issue!
Your job is really appreciated.
>
> Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better
> way to handle this? What severity should I use?
I think that bug reports should be filed against the relevant packages.
The right severity is: serious.
Please raise the severity of #364860, likewise.
>
> Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC
> are (I believe) in the public domain.
Public domain RFCs (if there are any) can be identified by looking at
them.
They must carry an appropriate notice to state that they are public
domain or else be knowingly published with no copyright notice in a
jurisdiction where, and at a time when, no copyright notice used to mean
public domain[1].
Better be sure that something is public domain, before saying that
everything is fine, IMHO.
[1] IIRC, the United Stated used to be such a jurisdiction until they
signed the Berne Convention (in 1988); I don't know for other
jurisdictions...
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpP5uuQsESwt.pgp
Description: PGP signature