On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 00:43:16 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > this thread started with a clarification request to > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, where I Cc:ed debian-legal, just to notify that > the question has been asked to the FSF and that a public response from > them was desired.
The thread I was referring to here is http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00037.html It was started as an attempt to get clarification from FSF on the issue raised in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/11/msg00101.html Well, I recently (on monday 12 february) got a *private* response from one kind Licensing Compliance Engineer from FSF. He confirmed that the license statement is ambiguous and problematic. The recommended course of action is getting in touch with the licensor(s) in order to obtain clarification on their intentions and encourage them to rewrite the license statement in a clearer way. I'm going to file a (normal severity) bug against the bootcd package to request that the license statement is clarified. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpNJEz9fkLZP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
