On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:02:07PM +0200, Alexander Sack - Debian Bugmail wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:53:37PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > Hi, > > this potential license problem is blocking (among others) the transition > > of 1.0.7-1, which fixes several serious security problems. As the problems > > some debian-legal people seem to have spotted haven't been noticed by noone > > else since the MPL is in use and triple-licensing is already being prepared > > this seems hardly justifiable. So please downgrade this to something non-RC.
> Maybe some release team members should tag this etch-ignore? Is this bug about the fact that the MPL isn't free, or about the fact that the copyright file doesn't mention the GPL? The latter issue isn't RC; all of the information in the copyright file is correct TTBOMK, the file just fails to mention that (the majority of) the source is also available under a different, more permissive set of rights. However, I don't see any reason *not* to fix that bug, either. The former issue is RC, but I consider the etch-ignore tag appropriate with the understanding that upstream is actively working on getting all of the code formally relicensed. If this were to change, or if it should become clear than some portion of the code will *not* be relicensed, then that is an issue that cannot be ignored for etch. -- 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
