On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:18:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > > Package: cpp > > Severity: serious
> > The manpages fsf-funding(7), gpl(7), and gfdl(7) are included in the > > cpp package. These are clearly non-free (non-modifiable). > this doesn't make sense. you are not allowed to change a copyright, > even for software distributed in main. AFAIK the distribution of > license texts is allowed in main, even if the license itself is > non-free. I'd like a confirmation from debian-legal, as I don't see > something about this in "2.1, Package copyright and sections". fsf-funding(7) is non-modifiable, and is not a license text. Do you agree that it does not meet the requirements for inclusion in main? > > [Plus they aren't mentioned in the copyright file, which claims the > > package is GPLed] > how should a copyright of a license text included in the > debian/copyright file? > > They should almost certainly be removed entirely, > why? > > and #181495 should instead be fixed by eliminating the references > > from the cpp manpage (possibly inserting references to > > /usr/share/common-licenses). > doesn't help, as the GFDL isn't in common-licenses. I think it's strange to see these licenses as manpages, and would argue that it's inconsistent and redundant to include them in this form. Debian has an established policy that guarantees where a user can find the license for a given package; these manpages are therefore extraneous and should probably be removed. But I think it's the fsf-funding manpage that justifies the severity of this bug. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgp0kD9LkDo6J.pgp
Description: PGP signature
