Le Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit : > > The meaning of clause 6 is rather difficult to parse and basically a > complete lawyerbomb. Humor is fine, but humor in licenses with > possible legal consequences isn't really something we should be > distributing in main or contrib.
Hello everybody, in my understanding, clause 6 means that clause 4 and 5 are a joke if we think they are a joke, and are not a joke if we think they are not a joke. But I would like to mention the fact that the maintainer team of libdumb is inactive: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-allegro-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org And that although not MIA, the uploader is also not keeping up with some of his other packages. This would argue for a removal if there is no consensus about clause 6, however there are a couple of packages that depend on libaldmb1: aqwa『~』$ apt-cache rdepends libaldmb1 libaldmb1 Reverse Depends: rafkill same maintainer as libdumb open-invaders no new upstream release since 2008 libaldmb1-dev same package as libaldmb1 kraptor no new upstream release since 2004 kq 1 RC bug (non-free files), but one person willing to adopt (see url below). kball no new upstream release since 2004 ballz not in Lenny alex4 no new upstream release since 2008 Proposition to adopt KQ. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-allegro-maintainers/2010-February/000299.html So although the removal of libdumb would need the removal of packages that do not have problems, it is an open last-ressort option that is not too disruptive for Debian as a whole. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org