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

Bug#675167: Bug#674844: Bug#674850: Bug#675167: Bug#674850: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute"

On 21/07/12 15:49, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Aside from the question of whether the content can actually have
> authorship asserted over it in the first place, we've historically
> treated licensing issues in stable where the situation has subsequently
> been clarified in unstable as documentation updates which don't qualify
> for an update in stable on their own.

Thanks for the clarification.

> Particularly as the package in stable is in non-free I'm afraid I'm not
> currently convinced that the proposed changes should be applied in
> stable.

That's fine by me. I only prepared the diff should the release team feel
an update was required. (IMHO the files in question aren't
copyrightable, but that's another issue).

Feel free to tag as wontfix/notabug/whatever you see fit.


Reply to: