On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 03:50:00PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > As I'm not seeing any chance of meeting DFSG criteria 5 and 6 with the above > intention (which clearly is discriminating certain groups - even though > personally I can perfectly well understand upstream's will on why this is) > I'm herewith seeking ftpmaster assistance on coming forth with a solution. > > IOW, I'm out of ideas on how to solve the problem of the DFSG while > respecting upstreams intended limitation. Is there any way we could > formulate such limitation as upstream desires without breaking the DFSG?
Upstream could be petitioned to remove that clause… (I sort of understand it, too, but it's clearly against Debian's standards.) > Unless someone can come forth with a wording that does cover both > requirements I guess we'll be bound to removing F*EX from the archive - > which IMHO would be a sad loss as there currently exsits no other product in > Debian providing the same services as F*EX does. Well, it could still be moved to non-free. I wonder how it passed NEW in the beginning, though. It was always that way, you say? Kind regards Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
