Hi Frank, On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:39:34AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> - Before this bug can be resolved, one needs to go through each > individual package and check its license and the list of files > covered. I have actually started doing that work, it is slowly but > continuously progressing, but we have still *a*lot* of work to do. > - In the small part I have already checked, I have found a considerable > number of files with unclear licenses (in other words, probably > intended to be free but not properly indicated) and some that are > actually non-free. > - I expect that in the remaining part, things will be similar. In other > words, I expect non-free or unclearly licensed files in teTeX, which > makes this bug release-critical. > - Even if I continue to work as I do now, I don't know when this will be > finished. And since my professional work situation might change in > the second half of this year, I might even be forced to do less. > - I actually do not expect that we get any real legal problems. The > files in question are and have been distributed so widely and for so > long that *distributabilty* cannot realistically be denied by anyone. > The problems are actually "only" questions of DFSG-freeness. I think it's perfectly reasonable under the circumstances to give the unchecked parts of the package the benefit of the doubt, even to the point of releasing with them unchecked. Yes, I understand you *expect* to find more problematic files, but I don't see any value in delaying a release over a question of non-free content that might not exist. Of course, as long as this doubt exists it's best to have as much of the package license-audited as possible before release; and any freeness problems that are confirmed before release should be addressed for the release. Cheers, -- 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/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
