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

Re: Bug#393422: Source package contains non-free IETF RFC/I-D's

retitle 393422 Contains non-free files.
tag 393422 - etch-ignore
clone 393422 -1
clone 393422 -2
clone 393422 -3
reassign -1 iceweasel
reassign -2 icedove
reassign -3 mozilla

On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 07:01:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> Mike,
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 06:28:01PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > 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
> > > further.
> > 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.
> What is an OJI file?  What would be proper source for an OJI file?

The files in plugin/oji. Sorry if that was not clear enough. Only the
files for the Open JVM Interface (OJI) on MacOSX are problematic, apparently.

> > 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
> > non-free files.
> > Now the question is : do you think it's fine for etch or do we have to
> > not ignore the situation ?
> As said in my previous email, sourceless executables need to be removed from
> the source package and are not etch-ignore.  I don't know what OJI files are
> and google doesn't help very much, so I don't know whether these are more
> like binary executables, or more like documentation.
> So on the whole, this is not an etch-ignorable issue; particular files may
> be etch-ignorable, but if you're going to have to prune the source package
> anyway, maybe it's easier to just remove questionable files if you know
> they're not used/needed, rather than spending time trying to determine if
> they're ok.

Then untagging etch-ignore and cloning on all the concerned packages.


Reply to: