BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Hi In the #debian-devel channel, Nicolás Álvarez ask about this BOINC's license issue, and in the pkg-boinc-devel team want to know your opinion: The BOINC source code were debianized to packages that meet the DFSG, and the Copyright include only compatible licenses (discarding all the files that don't comply with the DFSG from the Debian packages). Now, the doubt is in the lib/cal.h file, because includes the license pasted at the end of this message. My personal opinion is that this license is agree with the DFSG, because it says: This license does not affect any ownership, rights, title, or interest in, or relating to, this material, so I think that the purpose of this, is to not guarantee this software and avoid lawsuits about any problem in the use of this. Of course, my knowledge about legal concepts is very limited, so I appreciate any comment to give us in the team an argument about this, and of course, the tranquility that BOINC packages are agree with the DFSG. Thanks in advance and Best Regards! P.S. Please keep in the answer the CC to the Debian BOINC Maintainers Team. /* Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use of this material is permitted under the following conditions: Redistributions must retain the above copyright notice and all terms of this license. In no event shall anyone redistributing or accessing or using this material commence or participate in any arbitration or legal action relating to this material against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. or any copyright holders or contributors. The foregoing shall survive any expiration or termination of this license or any agreement or access or use related to this material. ANY BREACH OF ANY TERM OF THIS LICENSE SHALL RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF ALL RIGHTS TO REDISTRIBUTE, ACCESS OR USE THIS MATERIAL. THIS MATERIAL IS PROVIDED BY ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. AND ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION AND WITHOUT ANY REPRESENTATIONS, GUARANTEE, OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO SUPPORT, INDEMNITY, ERROR FREE OR UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION, OR THAT IT IS FREE FROM DEFECTS OR VIRUSES. ALL OBLIGATIONS ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED - WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY - INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OPERABILITY, QUALITY OF SERVICE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. OR ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, REVENUE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED OR BASED ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY ARISING IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THIS MATERIAL, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. THE ENTIRE AND AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. AND ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN DOLLARS (US $10.00). ANYONE REDISTRIBUTING OR ACCESSING OR USING THIS MATERIAL ACCEPTS THIS ALLOCATION OF RISK AND AGREES TO RELEASE ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. AND ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITIES, OBLIGATIONS, CLAIMS, OR DEMANDS IN EXCESS OF TEN DOLLARS (US $10.00). THE FOREGOING ARE ESSENTIAL TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AND, IF ANY OF THESE TERMS ARE CONSTRUED AS UNENFORCEABLE, FAIL IN ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, OR BECOME VOID OR DETRIMENTAL TO ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. OR ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS FOR ANY REASON, THEN ALL RIGHTS TO REDISTRIBUTE, ACCESS OR USE THIS MATERIAL SHALL TERMINATE IMMEDIATELY. MOREOVER, THE FOREGOING SHALL SURVIVE ANY EXPIRATION OR TERMINATION OF THIS LICENSE OR ANY AGREEMENT OR ACCESS OR USE RELATED TO THIS MATERIAL. NOTICE IS HEREBY PROVIDED, AND BY REDISTRIBUTING OR ACCESSING OR USING THIS MATERIAL SUCH NOTICE IS ACKNOWLEDGED, THAT THIS MATERIAL MAY BE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER COUNTRIES, WHICH INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, U.S. EXPORT CONTROL LAWS SUCH AS THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS AND NATIONAL SECURITY CONTROLS AS DEFINED THEREUNDER, AS WELL AS STATE DEPARTMENT CONTROLS UNDER THE U.S. MUNITIONS LIST. THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE USED, RELEASED, TRANSFERRED, IMPORTED, EXPORTED AND/OR RE-EXPORTED IN ANY MANNER PROHIBITED UNDER ANY APPLICABLE LAWS, INCLUDING U.S. EXPORT CONTROL LAWS REGARDING SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED PERSONS, COUNTRIES AND NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO NATIONAL SECURITY CONTROLS. MOREOVER, THE FOREGOING SHALL SURVIVE ANY EXPIRATION OR TERMINATION OF ANY LICENSE OR AGREEMENT OR ACCESS OR USE RELATED TO THIS MATERIAL. NOTICE REGARDING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND DOD AGENCIES: This material is provided with RESTRICTED RIGHTS and/or LIMITED RIGHTS as applicable to computer
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:46:27 -0600 Fernando C. Estrada wrote: Hi Hi! :) [...] Now, the doubt is in the lib/cal.h file, because includes the license pasted at the end of this message. I personally see various problems with this file. Assuming that the license you quoted constitutes the whole set of permissions granted on this file, I think that lib/cal.h does *not* comply with the DFSG. I think that the copyright holder should be contacted and asked for a more permissive license, so that lib/cal.h can meet the DFSG and be compatible with the other licenses of parts that are linked with lib/cal.h ... Other possible solutions are: drop lib/cal.h from the Debian package, if at all possible. Or move the package to non-free, while moving all the packages that depend or recommend it to contrib. My detailed comments may be found below. Needless to say, they represent my own personal opinion; other debian-legal participants may or may not agree... [...] Thanks in advance and Best Regards! You're welcome. P.S. Please keep in the answer the CC to the Debian BOINC Maintainers Team. Done. /* Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use of this material is permitted under the following conditions: I cannot find any permission to modify or distribute modified versions of the file. This seems to fail DFSG#3. [...] In no event shall anyone redistributing or accessing or using this material commence or participate in any arbitration or legal action relating to this material against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. or any copyright holders or contributors. The foregoing shall survive any expiration or termination of this license or any agreement or access or use related to this material. This takes away a right I would have in the absence of any license. That is to say, in order to get the permission to redistribute or use, I must surrender my right to commence or participate in any legal action related to this work. I see this as a fee required for getting the permission to redistribute: the presence of such a fee makes the work fail DFSG#1. [...] THE FOREGOING ARE ESSENTIAL TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AND, IF ANY OF THESE TERMS ARE CONSTRUED AS UNENFORCEABLE, FAIL IN ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, OR BECOME VOID OR DETRIMENTAL TO ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. OR ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS FOR ANY REASON, THEN ALL RIGHTS TO REDISTRIBUTE, ACCESS OR USE THIS MATERIAL SHALL TERMINATE IMMEDIATELY. This is also worrisome, from my point of view. Typical limitation of liability clauses found in Free Software licenses say something to effect of no liability, unless required by law or agreed to in writing. This clause, instead, seems to say that, if any limitation of liability is unenforceable, then, boom!, the whole grant of permission is void. This could discriminate against people living in jurisdictions where local law forbids too extreme limitations of liability. If this is the case, then it fails DFSG#5. [...] THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE USED, RELEASED, TRANSFERRED, IMPORTED, EXPORTED AND/OR RE-EXPORTED IN ANY MANNER PROHIBITED UNDER ANY APPLICABLE LAWS, INCLUDING U.S. EXPORT CONTROL LAWS REGARDING SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED PERSONS, COUNTRIES AND NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO NATIONAL SECURITY CONTROLS. Enforcing export control laws (or other laws), through a copyright license is not a good thing to do, IMHO. I think that, if I violate some export control law, I should be prosecuted for breaching that law, without *also* having to face copyright violation suits. [...] This license forms the entire agreement regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes all proposals and prior discussions and writings between the parties with respect thereto. It really seems that no other grant of permission may be considered valid... This license does not affect any ownership, rights, title, or interest in, or relating to, this material. I think that this means that, if I hold some right (e.g.: copyright) on a part of the work, then I am not constrained by the license, for that part of the work. This seems to be superfluous to say. [...] All disputes arising out of this license shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts in Austin, Texas, and all defenses are hereby waived concerning personal jurisdiction and venue of these courts. This is a choice of venue clause. Choice of venue clauses are controversial and have been discussed to death in the past on debian-legal: my personal opinion is that they fail to meet the DFSG. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpvKQ9MpnalB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote: /* Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use of this material is permitted under the following conditions: I cannot find any permission to modify or distribute modified versions of the file. This seems to fail DFSG#3. What?! The grant is /right/ there... Redistribution and use of this material is permitted provided the following criteria are met, and then it lists the criteria. I suppose it could be its own little bullet point, but that sure seems explicit to me. That you failed to see that as a grant really calls into question the neutrality of the rest of your license evaluation. [...] In no event shall anyone redistributing or accessing or using this material commence or participate in any arbitration or legal action relating to this material against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. or any copyright holders or contributors. The foregoing shall survive any expiration or termination of this license or any agreement or access or use related to this material. This takes away a right I would have in the absence of any license. That is to say, in order to get the permission to redistribute or use, I must surrender my right to commence or participate in any legal action related to this work. I see this as a fee required for getting the permission to redistribute: the presence of such a fee makes the work fail DFSG#1. The GPL takes away all sorts of rights... this can't possible be what DFSG #1 is intended on prohibiting. [...] THE FOREGOING ARE ESSENTIAL TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AND, IF ANY OF THESE TERMS ARE CONSTRUED AS UNENFORCEABLE, FAIL IN ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, OR BECOME VOID OR DETRIMENTAL TO ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. OR ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS FOR ANY REASON, THEN ALL RIGHTS TO REDISTRIBUTE, ACCESS OR USE THIS MATERIAL SHALL TERMINATE IMMEDIATELY. This is also worrisome, from my point of view. Typical limitation of liability clauses found in Free Software licenses say something to effect of no liability, unless required by law or agreed to in writing. This clause, instead, seems to say that, if any limitation of liability is unenforceable, then, boom!, the whole grant of permission is void. This could discriminate against people living in jurisdictions where local law forbids too extreme limitations of liability. If this is the case, then it fails DFSG#5. This continues to be a laughable argument. The GPL discriminates against countries who jail anyone who uses software licensed under the GPL. Is that discrimination? [...] THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE USED, RELEASED, TRANSFERRED, IMPORTED, EXPORTED AND/OR RE-EXPORTED IN ANY MANNER PROHIBITED UNDER ANY APPLICABLE LAWS, INCLUDING U.S. EXPORT CONTROL LAWS REGARDING SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED PERSONS, COUNTRIES AND NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO NATIONAL SECURITY CONTROLS. Enforcing export control laws (or other laws), through a copyright license is not a good thing to do, IMHO. I think that, if I violate some export control law, I should be prosecuted for breaching that law, without *also* having to face copyright violation suits. Not saying I disagree, but your position on how export laws should be enforced really isn't at issue here. The problem AMD is addressing here is third party liability if someone where to violate US export laws. Is this clause really any different than you aren't allowed to do anything illegal with this software? And, if so, does the DFSG really prohibit a developer from proscribing the use in that manner and thus exposing the developer to a whole RANGE of contributory liability? [...] This license forms the entire agreement regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes all proposals and prior discussions and writings between the parties with respect thereto. It really seems that no other grant of permission may be considered valid... How do you reach that conclusion?! This license does not affect any ownership, rights, title, or interest in, or relating to, this material. I think that this means that, if I hold some right (e.g.: copyright) on a part of the work, then I am not constrained by the license, for that part of the work. This seems to be superfluous to say. The license is just being very clear that the license in now way diminishes the ownership rights of AMD in the underlying code. Hardly superfluous if you are AMD. [...] All disputes arising out of this license shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts in Austin, Texas, and all defenses are hereby waived concerning personal jurisdiction and venue of these courts. This is a choice of venue clause. Choice of venue clauses are controversial and have been discussed to death in the past on
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote: /* Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use of this material is permitted under the following conditions: I cannot find any permission to modify or distribute modified versions of the file. This seems to fail DFSG#3. What?! The grant is /right/ there... Redistribution and use of this material is permitted provided the following criteria are met, and then it lists the criteria. I suppose it could be its own little bullet point, but that sure seems explicit to me. That you failed to see that as a grant really calls into question the neutrality of the rest of your license evaluation. The grant covers redistribution and use. It's my understanding that neither redistribution nor use encompasses modifications under copyright law, and Debian has consistently required an explicit grant of permission to modify and to distribute the resulting modified works in order to be considered DFSG-compliant. THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE USED, RELEASED, TRANSFERRED, IMPORTED, EXPORTED AND/OR RE-EXPORTED IN ANY MANNER PROHIBITED UNDER ANY APPLICABLE LAWS, INCLUDING U.S. EXPORT CONTROL LAWS REGARDING SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED PERSONS, COUNTRIES AND NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO NATIONAL SECURITY CONTROLS. Enforcing export control laws (or other laws), through a copyright license is not a good thing to do, IMHO. I think that, if I violate some export control law, I should be prosecuted for breaching that law, without *also* having to face copyright violation suits. Not saying I disagree, but your position on how export laws should be enforced really isn't at issue here. The problem AMD is addressing here is third party liability if someone where to violate US export laws. Is this clause really any different than you aren't allowed to do anything illegal with this software? No, it's not different at all - and a license that says you aren't allowed to do anything illegal with this software is *not* DFSG-compliant. Civil disobedience should not result in violations of the copyright licenses of software in Debian. And, if so, does the DFSG really prohibit a developer from proscribing the use in that manner and thus exposing the developer to a whole RANGE of contributory liability? Yes, it really does (assuming there's any contributory liability to be found here, anyway). This is a choice of venue clause. Choice of venue clauses are controversial and have been discussed to death in the past on debian-legal: my personal opinion is that they fail to meet the DFSG. A fight that has been lost many times... choice of venue is fine. Yes. I don't like choice of venue clauses, but the project has decided they are acceptable, and it's not appropriate to inject one's personal dissenting opinions into a license analysis on this list. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Friday 01 January 2010 5:11:09 pm Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote: /* Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use of this material is permitted under the following conditions: I cannot find any permission to modify or distribute modified versions of the file. This seems to fail DFSG#3. What?! The grant is /right/ there... Redistribution and use of this material is permitted provided the following criteria are met, and then it lists the criteria. I suppose it could be its own little bullet point, but that sure seems explicit to me. That you failed to see that as a grant really calls into question the neutrality of the rest of your license evaluation. The grant covers redistribution and use. It's my understanding that neither redistribution nor use encompasses modifications under copyright law, and Debian has consistently required an explicit grant of permission to modify and to distribute the resulting modified works in order to be considered DFSG-compliant. You are quite right... I failed to notice Francesco was talking just about /modification/. That certainly is a problem and clearly runs afoul of DFSG #3. My apologies. THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE USED, RELEASED, TRANSFERRED, IMPORTED, EXPORTED AND/OR RE-EXPORTED IN ANY MANNER PROHIBITED UNDER ANY APPLICABLE LAWS, INCLUDING U.S. EXPORT CONTROL LAWS REGARDING SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED PERSONS, COUNTRIES AND NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO NATIONAL SECURITY CONTROLS. Enforcing export control laws (or other laws), through a copyright license is not a good thing to do, IMHO. I think that, if I violate some export control law, I should be prosecuted for breaching that law, without *also* having to face copyright violation suits. Not saying I disagree, but your position on how export laws should be enforced really isn't at issue here. The problem AMD is addressing here is third party liability if someone where to violate US export laws. Is this clause really any different than you aren't allowed to do anything illegal with this software? No, it's not different at all - and a license that says you aren't allowed to do anything illegal with this software is *not* DFSG-compliant. Civil disobedience should not result in violations of the copyright licenses of software in Debian. Really?! How delightfully libertarian. I guess all I can do is reiterate my position that I don't think the DFSG should be read that way and hope that the FTP masters continue to show less political and more pragmatic evaluation :) -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@probonogeek.org w: http://blog.probonogeek.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
POV-Ray 3.7 beta in experimental, but non-redistributable
POV-Ray 3.7 beta is available from povray.org as compiled binaries for Microsoft Windows, and as source code tarballs. It's the first time the developers make source code available during beta development (usually there were only binaries available until the final release). However, the betas still have a different license from the one used in final releases; it's the standard POV-Ray license plus several *strict* restrictions specific to betas. Today I found that POV-Ray 3.7 is packaged in experimental: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/povray It's also patched to disable the beta expiration: http://patch- tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/povray/1:3.7.0~beta29-1/80_beta.diff This seems to violate the beta license in *every possible way*. Here are the restrictions, taken from one of the source files from the upstream source tarball: * NOTICE * * This file is part of a BETA-TEST version of POV-Ray version 3.7. It is not * final code. Use of this source file is governed by both the standard POV-Ray * licences referred to in the copyright header block above this notice, and the * following additional restrictions numbered 1 through 4 below: * * 1. This source file may not be re-distributed without the written permission * of Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd. * * 2. This notice may not be altered or removed. * * 3. Binaries generated from this source file by individuals for their own * personal use may not be re-distributed without the written permission * of Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd. Such personal-use binaries * are not required to have a timeout, and thus permission is granted in * these circumstances only to disable the timeout code contained within * the beta software. * * 4. Binaries generated from this source file for use within an organizational * unit (such as, but not limited to, a company or university) may not be * distributed beyond the local organizational unit in which they were made, * unless written permission is obtained from Persistence of Vision Raytracer * Pty. Ltd. Additionally, the timeout code implemented within the beta may * not be disabled or otherwise bypassed in any manner. The Debian package is redistributing entire source code of POV-Ray 3.7, available through packages.debian.org website and apt-get source -texperimental povray. This violates clause 1. The extra license restrictions for 3.7 betas are not present in /usr/share/doc/povray, which *I think* may violate clause 2. The Debian package disables the beta timeout code, which is only allowed for personal use (according to clause 3), not for wider distribution. In addition, I don't think a Linux distribution counts as an organizational unit as mentioned in clause 4; therefore Debian wouldn't be allowed to redistribute 3.7 betas at all. I have asked in POV-Ray newsgroups about this today, but got no answer yet (not like I expected an answer so fast there). I will forward this message to povray.beta-test. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: POV-Ray 3.7 beta in experimental, but non-redistributable
Le Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 01:55:18AM -0300, Nicolas Alvarez a écrit : Today I found that POV-Ray 3.7 is packaged in experimental: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/povray This seems to violate the beta license in *every possible way*. Here are the restrictions, taken from one of the source files from the upstream source tarball: * NOTICE * * This file is part of a BETA-TEST version of POV-Ray version 3.7. It is not * final code. Use of this source file is governed by both the standard POV-Ray * licences referred to in the copyright header block above this notice, and the * following additional restrictions numbered 1 through 4 below: * * 1. This source file may not be re-distributed without the written permission * of Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd. Dear Nicolas, indeed, the Debian copyright file of the povray does not mention written permissions from Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd. I think that this is enough to open a Serious bug on the Debian povray package (version 3.7.0~beta29-1). If the povray package maintainers get the permission to distribute and disable the timeout, or simply forgot to mention that they already got it, they can close the bug with an upload that corrects the Debian copyright file, and otherwise the bug can be reassigned to ftp.debian.org as a request for removal. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: POV-Ray 3.7 beta in experimental, but non-redistributable
Charles Plessy wrote: Dear Nicolas, indeed, the Debian copyright file of the povray does not mention written permissions from Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd. I think that this is enough to open a Serious bug on the Debian povray package (version 3.7.0~beta29-1). If the povray package maintainers get the permission to distribute and disable the timeout, or simply forgot to mention that they already got it, they can close the bug with an upload that corrects the Debian copyright file, and otherwise the bug can be reassigned to ftp.debian.org as a request for removal. Have a nice day, Thanks for your reply. I have filed #563344. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
