Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal
Stephen Gran <email@example.com> writes:
> I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software doesn't
> need to meet the DFSG, or is it just that it's particularly inconvenient
> to release without it?
I think it's fairly obvious that glibc meets the DFSG in practice, in that
no one is ever going to attempt to apply the ambiguous and badly-written
portions of the Sun RPC license in a way that might violate the DFSG.
It's certainly not an ideal situation, but on the spectrum of licensing
issues that we might ignore it's not one that would keep me up at night.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>