[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.

Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: