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

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal



On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.
> 
Also, it's in the process of being resolved. There are (according to
another thread) talks with Sun about explicitly licensing it under a
better licence.

Matt
-- 
Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: