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