[This is a verbatim repost of a message I originally posted on debian-devel with the subject line "Re: Intent to package: GGlyph". Since this raises several policy issues, I thought I'd repost it here for comments.]
David Huggins-Daines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, back to the ongoing KDE/GPL discussion. (just my newbie-maintainer's > two cents, but we should remember to be consistent - if KDE goes in hamm > as source-only, then so should lyx, dfm, and others... a disclaimer seems > in order in any case) In one sense, this isn't a hamm issue: we've always maintained that contrib and non-free aren't really a part of our distribution and are only available as an aid to people who use our system. That said, decided to look at all the copyrights on contrib packages. The following had no copyright files. Some of them had symbolic links pointing to what would probably be directories containing copyright files, but I did not investigate further (to find out if the currently available packages which would provide those directories indeed had reasonable copyrights). I think that current policy allows this, and I think that policy is a mistake: explorer-icons-kde_0.72-2.1.deb picon-misc_1998.04.20-2.deb explorer-icons-ms_0.72-2.1.deb picon-news_1998.04.20-2.deb explorer-icons-orig_0.72-2.1.deb picon-unknown_1998.04.20-2.deb gdk-imlib-nonfree-dev_1.3-3.deb picon-usenix_1995.04.13-4.deb gdk-imlib-nonfree1_1.3-3.deb picon-users_1998.05.15-2.deb imlib-nonfree-dev_1.3-3.deb picon-weather_1998.04.20-2.deb imlib-nonfree1_1.3-3.deb roxen-pike-msql_1.2beta2-2.deb iraf-ibin_2.11.1-1.deb roxen-pike-mysql_1.2beta2-2.deb iraf-noaobin_2.11.1-1.deb roxen-pike-pg_1.2beta2-2.deb netscape3_3.04-3.deb The following had unusually named, but recognizable oddball copyright files: metro-motif-aout_2.0-2.deb metro-motif-devel_2.0-2.deb metro-motif-bin_2.0-2.deb metro-motif-lib_2.0-2.deb metro-motif-demobin_2.0-2.deb metro-motif-man_2.0-2.deb metro-motif-demosrc_2.0-2.deb netscape4_4.0-12.deb Most of the remainder had GPL licenses. But I was shocked to find that most had *only* GPL licenses. If that was really the case, then these should go in main. Otherwise, I think most of these need the LGPL license (even the installers.. it just doesn't make sense to GPL them). Now this is an issue I wouldn't mind putting past RMS and his lawyer... once we document what the license issues really are: atari800_0.8.6-2.deb libdbd-msql-perl_0.91-5.deb auto-pgp_1.04-1.deb lyx_0.12.0.final-0.1.deb ddd-dmotif_2.2.3-2.deb m-tx_0.30a-3.deb ddd-smotif_2.2.3-2.deb mailcrypt_3.4-4.deb dfm_0.9.1-4.deb mrtg_2.5.2-1.deb doom-musserver_1.0-7.deb msqlperl_0.91-5.deb explorer_0.72-2.1.deb musixlyr_1.10-1.deb ftpwatch_1.3.deb php3-gd_3.0-1.deb gstep-base-dev_0.5.0.980520-1.deb php3-mysql_3.0-1.deb gstep-base-examples_0.5.0.980520-1.deb pinepgp_3.3.deb gstep-base_0.5.0.980520-1.deb pppload_1.0-5.deb gstep-extensions-dev_0.5.0.980520-1.deb quake-lib-stub_1.9.deb gstep-extensions_0.5.0.980520-1.deb qweb_1.3-3.deb gstep-gui-dev_0.5.0.980520-1.deb roxen-pike_1.2beta2-2.deb gstep-gui_0.5.0.980520-1.deb roxen_1.2beta2-2.deb gstep-make_0.5.0.980520-1.deb rvplayer_5.0-2.deb gstep-xdps-dev_0.5.0.980520-1.deb sdc_1.0.8beta-7.deb gstep-xdps-examples_0.5.0.980520-1.deb splay_0.8.2-1.deb gstep-xdps_0.5.0.980520-1.deb staroffice3_3.1-8.deb kdebase_980312-8.deb tcpquota_1.6.13-2.deb kdegames_980310-3.deb vice_0.13.0-2.deb kdegraphics_980312-3.deb xexec_0.0.3-7.deb kdelibs0g-dev_980312-5.deb xfmix_0.2-1.deb kdelibs0g_980312-5.deb xirc_2.0-3.deb kdemultimedia_980331-1.deb xisp_2.1-1.deb kdenetwork_980328-1.deb xldlas_0.85-2.deb kdeutils_980312-6.deb xmysql_1.8-1.deb kpppload_1.01-5.deb xsidplay_1.1.5-1.deb libdbi-perl_0.92-2.deb I don't think we should hold up hamm for this, but I don't think we should be making cds with these binaries on them. Then again, some of these I think belong in main (libdbi-perl, roxen-pike, and roxen were ones I recognized). Note that reading over this many copyright licenses is tiring. I may have made some mistakes. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
