On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:33:13PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 02:28:19PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've uploaded new packages for asmodem and knews to fix some bugs in these > > > packages. > > As I said several hours ago, > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa-0102/msg00163.html > I'm wondering why you didn't retitle #70864? When you intend to adopt it > you should retitle the according WNPP bug.
I wasn't intending on adopting, just doing a -qa upload. > > > so.. > > I've moved the asmodem packages from /incoming to my ~ on auric, I'm > > sure your package is fine, but I'd like to make this package > > DFSG-free before uploading a fixed one into main, if the situation > > can't be resolved (I doubt it), it should go into non-free. > >... > > This license does not meet criteria 3 of the DFSG "Derived Works" > > i.e. it does not expressly permit modifications and redistributing > > modified stuff. > >... > > That sounds logical. Could you perhaps file a RC bug on the license issue? I didn't see the point in filing a bug, as I expected to have the situation resolved within 24 hours or so, feel free to file if you think there is a need. -- Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org LPSG "member" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
