On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:05:01AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Mit, 27 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > > - If a component of a package lists a non-free license, but is distributed > > as part of a larger work that includes a blanket license statement, > > resulting in ambiguity about which license the component is distributed > > under, the bug is not RC with the condition that the maintainer is > > expected to seek a clarification.
> This would mean that a priori we can assume that these bugs are not RC > for TeX live, as this is a blanket license statement of following the > DFSG in inclusion of packages (plus GFDL documents which have already > been removed from the packages). A statement that "the work must be DFSG-compliant to be accepted" is not the same thing as saying "this tarball is distributed under license <foo>". It's the latter that introduces ambiguity. -- 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/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
