[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[tytso@MIT.EDU: Re: Bug#390664: closed by tytso@mit.edu (Theodore Y. Ts'o) (Bug#390664: fixed in e2fsprogs 1.39+1.40-WIP-2006.10.02-1)]

I would appreciate any comments from the Debian Release Managers and
Debian Masters about whether or not it is required to remove any files
which are legal for us to redistribute (such as RFC's and I-D's), but
which are not DFSG-compliant from source tarballs (but which are not
included in any of packages which are part of 'main' or 'contrib').  I
can find no statement in Debian Policy which requires this, and there
is an admonition to try to not to deviate from the upstream source tar
file whenever possible.

If any comments could be made to bug #390664, it would be much
appreciated.

Regards,

						- Ted
--- Begin Message --- 
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:02:32PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Thanks for dealing with the bug so fast!
> 
> The source package appear to contain the same file:
> 
> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs_1.39.orig.tar.gz
> 
> e2fsprogs-1.39/doc/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.txt
> 
> Steve Langasek suggested on debian-legal that asking for permission
> from the document authors would be preferable to removing the file.
> According to the file, the authors are Paul J. Leach
> <paulle@microsoft.com> and Rich Salz <salzr@certco.com>, but the
> document suggests others may own the document too:

It is legal to distribute the source file, so leaving the I-D in the
source should not be an issue.  Debian Policy merely says that the
packages must be DFSG compliant, but as far as I know, the controlling
guidelines for the source files are: (1) it is highly desirable that
the file be identical to the upstream, and (2) it must be legal for
our FTP mirrors to distribute.  Both conditions are currently
satisified, so I don't see a justification for diverging with the
upstream source file just to remove the I-D.

Regards,

						- Ted

--- End Message ---
Reply to: