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

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
> Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> 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.

I'm personally not worried about the firmware issue, either, or at
least for the ones where the vendors intent is clear, even though the
'source' (whatever that is or was) is missing.  Unredistributable object
code is unredistributable, and I don't think that's in question here.

But maybe I'm misreading you - are you saying that you think it's also
fine for those bits of blobs, since the vendors pretty clearly wanted
them to be included in free projects?
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: