Your message dated Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:18:42 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Regarding the reference manual for alcovebook
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: alcovebook-sgml-doc is not DFSG free
Package: alcovebook-sgml-doc
Severity: serious
Justification: DFSG
Tags: sarge-ignore
debian-legal has recently reconsidered the Open Publication License
and has determined that it is a license that is not free. See:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00226.html
It appears that your package is using data under that license. So you
could either:
1) persuade the upstream author to change the license
2) move the package to non-free
3) could ask the package to be removed
Anyway, documentation licence issues are not being considered RC for
sarge, that's why the bug is tagget as Sarge ignore. That's let you some
time to persuade the upstream author :)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 01:02:24PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
> Hi yann, any progress on this ? if you can make upstream confirm that
> the material is licensed under the GFDL with no invariant sections and
> such, this year GR makes it DFSG-free.
The reference manual itself does not have any specific copyright. It
is mostly material generated from the DTD itself, with only a couple
of things from alcovebook.dsc. Thus I close the bug about the
reference manual. I'm not sure why it was thought to be under GFDL.
> though I agree that only the PDF intro document speaks about GFDL,
> current licensing state of that package is unclear and need to be
> clarified.
The "intro" documents, however, have a different status: they are
derived from OPL documents, and thus fall under the OPL, but they
contain a GFDL notice.
Since those documents are not very useful anyway, I'll just drop them,
that should fix the remaining issue.
Best regards,
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
--- End Message ---
