tags 393356 etch-ignore tags 393357 etch-ignore tags 393358 etch-ignore tags 393359 etch-ignore tags 393360 etch-ignore tags 393361 etch-ignore tags 393364 etch-ignore tags 393365 etch-ignore tags 393366 etch-ignore tags 393367 etch-ignore tags 393368 etch-ignore tags 393369 etch-ignore tags 393370 etch-ignore tags 393371 etch-ignore tags 393372 etch-ignore tags 393373 etch-ignore tags 393374 etch-ignore tags 393375 etch-ignore tags 393376 etch-ignore tags 393377 etch-ignore tags 393378 etch-ignore tags 393379 etch-ignore tags 393380 etch-ignore tags 393381 etch-ignore tags 393382 etch-ignore tags 393383 etch-ignore tags 393384 etch-ignore tags 393385 etch-ignore tags 393386 etch-ignore tags 393387 etch-ignore tags 393388 etch-ignore tags 393389 etch-ignore tags 393390 etch-ignore tags 393391 etch-ignore tags 393392 etch-ignore tags 393393 etch-ignore tags 393394 etch-ignore tags 393395 etch-ignore tags 393396 etch-ignore tags 393397 etch-ignore tags 393398 etch-ignore tags 393399 etch-ignore tags 393400 etch-ignore tags 393402 etch-ignore tags 393403 etch-ignore tags 393405 etch-ignore tags 393406 etch-ignore tags 393408 etch-ignore tags 393409 etch-ignore tags 393410 etch-ignore tags 393411 etch-ignore tags 393412 etch-ignore tags 393413 etch-ignore tags 393414 etch-ignore tags 393415 etch-ignore tags 393416 etch-ignore tags 393417 etch-ignore tags 393418 etch-ignore tags 393419 etch-ignore tags 393420 etch-ignore tags 393421 etch-ignore tags 393422 etch-ignore tags 393423 etch-ignore tags 393424 etch-ignore tags 393425 etch-ignore thanks
Hi Simon, On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:51:17AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > This bug has been filed on multiple packages, and general discussions > are kindly requested to take place on debian-legal or debian-devel in > the thread with Subject: "Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages". > It seems this source package contains the following files from the > IETF under non-free license terms: > apg-2.2.3/doc/rfc0972.txt > apg-2.2.3/doc/rfc1750.txt > The license on RFC/I-Ds is not DFSG-free, see: > * http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810 > * http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation > * http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments > The etch release policy says binary and source packages must each be free: > * http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt > The severity is serious, because this violates the Debian policy: > * http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg > There are (at least) three ways to fix this problem. In order of > preference: > 1. Ask the author of the RFC to re-license the RFC under a free > license. A template for this e-mail request can be found at > http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments > 2. Remove the non-free material from the source, e.g., by re-packaging > the upstream archive and adding a 'dfsg' version name to it. > 3. Move the package to non-free. > I went over many packages looking for names of likely non-free files, > and there may be false positives. If this is the case for your > package, I'm sorry for the noise. I'll modify the scripts to take > into account false positives when I learn of them, and publish the > list of exceptions under "Known exceptions" at > <http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments>. Andi Barth and I have discussed these bugs, and we believe these bugs should be granted an exception for etch, for the following reasons: - As you mention, this mass-filing is based on file names and may include false positives for this reason. Given this uncertainty, which covers both files that may not actually contain RFCs and RFCs that may be distributed with separate permissions from the authors, I do not consider it reasonable for the burden to be on the maintainers (and the release team) to demonstrate any particular bug to be a false-positive before the package can be included in the release. - The time between the bug filing and the scheduled release of etch is now relatively short, and I don't believe, given the comparatively small impact of these bugs (where RC bugs are concerned), that they should warrant either delaying the release of etch or requiring the removal of a package so affected. It is normal to allow some latitude for such license issues while they are being investigated/addressed. I'm happy to see that a number of maintainers have already made uploads (or are preparing uploads) to address these bugs, and I would encourage all maintainers to try to address such bugs in their packages for release. I am also certainly happy to grant freeze exceptions for uploads fixing these bugs. We only will not treat these as bugs that must be fixed prior to release. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
