The mentions in the "offending" files mentioned in this bug report are
very clearly copy and paste that was made without thinking by the
people who did so.

A very good example are the wo_SN, ca_AD, eu_FR (and maybe a few
others), which I am the author of. So, yes, I am one of those people
who didn't even imagine that people would consider locale files as
somethign that could have a licence?

It was definitely not my intent to give a licence to a collection of
information that indeed belongs to the public domain. And, still, I
blindly and carelessly copied information from another locale.

So, I wonder whether the following:
# Distribution and use is free, also for
# commercial purposes.
should be considered a "licence".

So, really, considering this as RC for files where even the fact that
a licence can apply to, is highly debatable. I therefore suggest that
an exception is granted for squeeze to give time to "fix" this:

- either by rewriting the offending locales....which would indeed
be just copy and paste, as such information has, by definition, only
one form

- or by "relicensing" them (which I'll do immediately for locales I
wrote, putting them in the public domain).

Release team, would you be OK to grant an exception for locales ad bug
#555168? The alternative would of course be to downgrade this bug to
severoty important (imho, it should be "minor", even).


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to