Bug #506977 FPC: copyright infringement in pre 2.2.2 sources
Hi,
my suggestion is to remove fpc from oldstable and stable but unblock
the unstable version 2.2.2-4 for lenny and trigger binNMUs for
lazarus. What do you think?
What is the correct way to remove packages from (old)stable? Should I
file a bug report against ftp.debian.org or is it done by the SRM?
Cheers,
Torsten
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Note: I'm the FPC core developer that also features in the Ubuntu
> correspondance. Carlos (the maintainer of this port) can confirm that, or
> have a look here: http://www.freepascal.org/aboutus.var
>
> The probable infringement was brought to our attention in early 2007.
> The infringement was made amenable mostly due to trivial means (variable
> names, fairly small procedures that were the same).
>
> The other side was really cooperative, and gave us time to clean up
> massively, without having to immediately pull all sources, and we employed
> at tool to identify potential problem sources, and found a lot more.
>
> So we cut real wide, and reengineered all potentially infringing code. (all
> in all a nontrivial amount).
>
> However because the infringement was so trivial, and relicensing
> counterproductive and confusion, it was decided to pull all releases.
>
> So in august, after 2.2.2 came out, we removed all older releases from our
> site, and assumed the mentioning of the copyright problems in our release
> manifest would be enough to warrant a swift upgrade.
>
> I hope it need no explanation that that was a pretty painful step, removing
> 10 years of history of our project.
>
> However, here we are now, 3-4 months after the release and the heads up, and
> the infringing code is still served from Debian servers. We are not happy
> with this. Note that it is also not fair to the other party who has been
> patient, and now could see the code still floating around.
>
> In short: please remove the old versions as soon as possible, or upgrade.
>
> Marco.
>
>
>
>
Reply to: