On 14.12.2015 22:56, Francesco Poli wrote: > Well, they themselves say that one of the files under consideration is > > | Derived, in part, from: > | > | * iso-pub.gml > | > | Copyright (C) 1986 International Organization for Standardization > | Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with > | conforming SGML systems and applications as defined in > | ISO 8879, provided this notice is included in all copies. > > and similarly for other files. > > Hence, they basically say that some OASIS files (that they distribute > under DFSG-free terms) are derived, in part, from some ISO files which > do *not* grant any permission to modify. > > Without any additional explanation, this sounds like a copyright > violation.
Here our interpretations diverge then. Indeed it's always allowed to suspect, but I'd much prefer that a RC bug is filed after those suspects are confirmed. >> If they say 'yes', how one is >> supposed to verify that they really do? > > A simple "yes" answer would not suffice: they need to provide a > convincing explanation... Out of curiosity, what can that be? > Dropping the OASIS files from package fbreader is the last resort > solution, assuming that those files are not strictly needed for the > package to provide significant functionality. If a violation is present, this will be my first resort, otherwise fbreader will disappear from testing very quickly. Between absense of fbreader and worse DocBook format support in fbreader, I choose second. Ad plug: should anyone see a better action course, fbreader is open for adoption. > Please note that, as I have previously said, one FTP Assistant > confirmed that files under the ISO license are not fit for Debian main: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/12/msg00000.html I don't read that as something I can directly apply for things under OASIS copyright. Of course I might be wrong, that's why I invited Debian archive masters to the loop. No reason for us to argue any longer, let's just wait for what they think. If those files are unfree, there were in the archive for 7+ years and can wait few days I presume.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
