* Matthew Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081110 22:03]: > On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc > > > for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software doesn't > > > need to meet the DFSG, or is it just that it's particularly inconvenient > > > to release without it? > > > > I think it's fairly obvious that glibc meets the DFSG in practice, in that > > no one is ever going to attempt to apply the ambiguous and badly-written > > portions of the Sun RPC license in a way that might violate the DFSG. > > It's certainly not an ideal situation, but on the spectrum of licensing > > issues that we might ignore it's not one that would keep me up at night. > > > Also, it's in the process of being resolved. There are (according to > another thread) talks with Sun about explicitly licensing it under a > better licence.
The stuff in the kernel is also in the process of being resolved. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
