Your message dated Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:28:43 +0200 with message-id <20120809222843.GA29788@spike.0x539.de> and subject line Re: Bug#675167: Bug#674844: Bug#674850: Bug#675167: Bug#674850: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute" has caused the Debian Bug report #675167, regarding pu: package figlet/2.2.2-1+squeeze1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 675167: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=675167 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 674844@bugs.debian.org, 673096@bugs.debian.org, Jonathan McCrohan <jmccrohan@gmail.com>, Carlos Laviola <claviola@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>
- Subject: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute"
- From: Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 08:58:07 +0000
- Message-id: <20120528085807.GC26904@master.debian.org>
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Please remove figlet 2.2.2-1 from unstable, testing, stable and oldstable. The package contains material that must not be distributed. One example is that the file fonts/8859-3.flc contains a license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute".
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, 675167-done@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Jonathan McCrohan <jmccrohan@gmail.com>, rhonda@deb.at, tolimar@debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#675167: Bug#674844: Bug#674850: Bug#675167: Bug#674850: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute"
- From: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:28:43 +0200
- Message-id: <20120809222843.GA29788@spike.0x539.de>
- In-reply-to: <1342882166.13223.116.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
- References: <20120528085807.GC26904@master.debian.org> <20120530190556.GA9207@radis.cristau.org> <4FC7F607.7090607@gmail.com> <20120604175643.GT31090@radis.cristau.org> <4FCD0CD4.9050004@debian.org> <20120615211011.GA26677@anguilla.debian.or.at> <4FDBE447.8040007@gmail.com> <1342882166.13223.116.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 03:49:26PM +0100, 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. > > 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. I also tend to say that documenting it in unstable is fine, given that the file didn't really change and that the intention of the copyright holder is that it's freely disseminated. Jonathan, thank you for providing us with the update, though! Kind regards Philipp KernAttachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---