Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Johnson (firstname.lastname@example.org) [081110 22:03]:
>> On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > Stephen Gran <email@example.com> 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.
The difference being that the former is being resolved with a
license change, and the latter is being resolved with code changes, and
will require adjustments to the infrastructure. That makes the former
a faster process.
Debug is human, de-fix divine.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C