Bug#211640: ssh: contains unlicensed Internet-Draft in /usr/share/doc/ssh/RFC.gz
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:10:19PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 03:03:52PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:49:11AM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > > Package: ssh
> > > Version: 1:3.6.1p2-8
> > > Severity: serious
> > >
> > > The Internet-Draft in /usr/share/doc/ssh/RFC.gz is lacking a license.
> > > Therefore, we cannot distribute it.
> >
> > "The distribution of this memo is unlimited."
>
> I apologize; I was imprecise. We cannot distribute it in main, because
> it lacks a license. Therefore, there is no license for it that complies
> with the DFSG.
"The distribution of this memo is unlimited" is a licence. It's not a
DFSG-free one, but it gives explicit licence to distribute.
> > > It should be removed from the package and a new package should be
> > > uploaded immediately.
> >
> > We're generally not worrying about documentation licences too much until
> > sarge+1.
>
> This is a point of contention on -legal. Many of the regulars feel that
> it is wrong to ignore the DFSG.
It's a point of pragmatism. We are trying to release in less than three
months; this sort of sweeping audit needs to happen at the start of
development cycles for practical reasons, not at the end. In any case,
this is the release manager's decision (general resolutions excepting)
and I was simply quoting him. I don't feel like getting into a long
argument about it here.
> > I will not be uploading a new package immediately because the
> > RFC needs to be removed from the .orig.tar.gz, and since openssh is what
> > it is and has cryptographic signatures for its source tarball
> > distributed by upstream, I would rather consult them first.
>
> That's fine. Please leave the bug open while you do, though.
If I were going to close the bug I would have done so already.
Regards,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: