Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal
* Matthew Johnson (email@example.com) [081110 22:03]:
> On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Stephen Gran <firstname.lastname@example.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.
The stuff in the kernel is also in the process of being resolved.