[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) writes: > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> It seems this source package contains the following files from the >> IETF under non-free license terms: >> >> nettle-1.14.orig/testsuite/rfc1750.txt > > Hmm. This is kind-of funny. I use this file as test input regression > testing of the pseudorandomness generator, because I felt it was > appropriate...
Ah, neat. > I can easily replace the file by any free text file. Any suggestions? How about the Nettle manual? That seems to be appropriate, too. > For instance, I could replace it by the GNU manifesto, subject to > "Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies > of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice > and permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants > the recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by > this notice. Modified versions may not be made.". > > Is that acceptable? I haven't been following the debian debates on the > topic very closely. As far as I'm aware, the GNU manifesto is included > in debian's emacs packages, and it would look pretty silly to remove > it. I think it wouldn't be acceptable, DFSG says material has to be modifiable, and the GNU manifesto clearly isn't. As far as Emacs goes, I think the maintainers are working on removing all non-free material in it, presumably including the GNU manifesto, although I agree that it is weird to remove it. > Anyway, in the context of Nettle, rfc1750 is not really "source code", > and it doesn't make much sense to modify or fix bugs in it. Right, understood, but I believe Debian no longer makes a distinction between source code and non-source code; everything has to be DFSG-free, and rfc1750 isn't. /Simon
