Re: Bug#393422: Source package contains non-free IETF RFC/I-D's
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 04:13:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> Does your question apply to *all* of the files mentioned in the mail you
> linked to? I don't understand which files you believe are non-free and why;
> some of the files mentioned are things like Microsoft Office documents,
> which are fine for main. Others are sourceless executables for other
> platforms, which are not (and are also not etch-ignore). I'm not sure which
> of the remainder are questionable for Debian, so it's hard to comment
The mail I quoted is a starting point. Note that it not only applies
to xulrunner, but also applies to mozilla (which will be replaced by
iceape), icedove, and firefox (which will be replaced by iceweasel).
I guess most of the Word files are fine, though clarification about the
licensing of the document would be better (who knows, some
documentations could have non-free licenses, like the IETF documents
have). The OJI files, on the other hand, from what I can see, do lack
source and are thus non-free.
The thing is that investigation is required on this issue. The other
thing is that AFAIK, the files involved in building our packages are
free. Which means that (AFAIK, again) only source tarballs may contain
Now the question is : do you think it's fine for etch or do we have to
not ignore the situation ?