Re: RFS: spim
Charles Plessy <email@example.com> writes:
> Le Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 06:42:31PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Not only that, it isn't an explicit statement from the copyright
> > holder at all; it's someone else reporting in their own words:
> > That's far from what we normally require: explicit written license
> > in the copyright holder's own words.
> I do not know who ‘we’ are in this story, but the fact that the above
> URL stems from packages.debian.org demonstrates that the statement was
> enough for the package to be accepted in the Debian archive.
This doesn't contradict what I've said: that the Debian project
*normally* (AFAICT) requires explicit written license terms from the
Nor does the fact that the package *was* in the archive mean that it
will be again accepted without explicit written license to redistribute.
I think it's unlikely that an alert ftpmaster would today allow it into
the archive in such a state, and I'm alerting the maintainer of this.
\ “Courage is not the absence of fear, but the decision that |
`\ something else is more important than fear.” —Ambrose Redmoon |