Your message dated Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:52:24 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: please decide on sunrpc in dietlibc, openafs
has caused the Debian Bug report #1072165,
regarding DFSG: please decide on sunrpc
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1072165: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1072165
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Control: blocks -1 1067946 1069365
Dear ftpmasters,
in #1067946 it was reported that some consider the sunrpc code as
included in dietlibc nōn-free.
Given that the actual wording is…
> […] Users
> * may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized
> * to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
> * program developed by the user.
… and that we receive dietlibc as “a product or program developed by”
Fefe (upstream author) under GPL, I think differently, and this *has*
passed review in the past.
Ultimately, *our* options are closing this as not a problem, removing
dietlibc (not very favourable), and excising the code in question
hoping not to break any downstream users. The reporter has also sent
this to upstream, which is the correct place where to apply the fix
suggested (replace with a different implementation), but there hasn’t
yet been any response or decision either way.
Now I don’t just want to close it or play bug pingpong, so I’d prefer
there to be an official decision either way, so that we can decide
what to do. (And then, I can invest some time to look at the other RC
reported and try to reproduce it on a porterbox etc. but I prefer to
do this when there’s not a sword of possible removal hanging over us.)
Thanks in advance!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 9/9/26 08:43, Andrew McMillan wrote:
On Wed, 2026-09-09 at 08:40 +0200, Bastian Germann wrote:
Hi Andrew,
This is true for glibc and FreeBSD versions of those files. However,
it needs to be verified on a case by case basis whether we can make
use of a relicensed version. For openafs this is not possible as-is
because they have non-trivial changes which are under the old
license. And both Debian packages where this bug was filed do not
want to put in the work without a decision whether the license is
non-DFSG-free.
In that case you will need to do the case-by-case review of those
files. If the old license still applies it is clearly not DFSG-free.
Thanks,
Andrew.
Thanks
Bastian
Am 08.09.2026 22:26 schrieb Andrew McMillan <[email protected]>:
Hi,
https://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html
It seems pretty clear that these files have now been relicensed
under
the BSD 3 Clause license.
Thanks,
Andrew.
--- End Message ---
