Bug#51879: revised proposal: package may be maintained by a group
Zed Pobre wrote:
> Actually, I kind of have a nit to pick with this, on the grounds
> that a package might not be appropriate for any distribution on the
> grounds of a completely unacceptable license (which I suppose would
> mean that the appropriate distribution is the bitbucket and the
> statement holds, but somehow it seems inelegant).
There's lots of other parts of policy that say what may go in debian, and in
non-free, non-us, and contrib. I see no reason to repeat it in the paragraph
I am amending.
see shy jo