Your message dated Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:07:35 +0100
with message-id <200906011907.n51j7zdx011...@kmos.homeip.net>
and subject line linuxfacile has been removed from Debian, closing #529362
has caused the Debian Bug report #529362,
regarding linuxfacile: includes non-removable, non-modifiable text
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
529362: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=529362
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: linuxfacile
Version: 5.0.new-5
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
User: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: nonfree-doc gfdl
Hi!
This package is licensed under the
| terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any
| later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
| with no Invariant Sections, with one Front-Cover Texts: ``Linux
| Facile - di Daniele Medri'', and with no Back-Cover Texts.
as stated in
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/l/linuxfacile/current/copyright
According to the outcome of GR-2006-001, only
| works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts,
| Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to
| remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main
| component of our distribution.
(see http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001#amendmenttexta)
As a consequence, this package is not considered suitable for
main by the Debian Project at large, since it includes a
Front-Cover Text.
There are at least three strategies to fix this bug.
In order of preference:
a) persuade the upstream author to re-license (or dual-license)
the work under the terms of a well-known license that clearly
meets the DFSG (e.g.: the GNU GPL v2)
b) persuade the upstream author to re-license the work without
the Front-Cover Text restriction, or with the explicit
permission to remove it
c) move the package to non-free
Please note that a) is better than b), since the GFDL is always
problematic, even for works without non-removable & non-modifiable
material: see point 3. of GR-2006-001 outcome
(http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001#amendmenttexta).
For the record, I am personally convinced that GFDL'ed works
never comply with the DFSG (that is to say: I would have voted for
option 1 in GR-2006-001), but that's another story...
Please note that the linuxfacile manual seems to include parts
written by people other than Daniele Medri (e.g.: RMS): as a
consequence, I am not sure that the manual can be correctly claimed
to be only
| Copyright (C) 2000-2001 Daniele Medri
as stated in
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/l/linuxfacile/current/copyright
This may make strategies a) and b) above more difficult to adopt,
as *all* copyright holders need to agree to the re-licensing!
BTW, the upstream homepage seems to have changed to
http://linuxfacile.medri.org/
Please fix this bug.
Thanks in advance.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 5.0.new-5+rm
The linuxfacile package has been removed from Debian so we are closing
the bugs that were still opened against it.
For more information about this package's removal, read
http://bugs.debian.org/530742 . That bug might give the reasons why
this package was removed, and suggestions of possible replacements.
Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question.
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
Kind regards,
--
Marco Rodrigues
--- End Message ---
