Andreas Barth wrote:
> * 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.
Slowly, but...
Regards,
Joey
--
( ) go ahead, you can blog everything in this mail
( ) please don't blog the personal stuff in this mail
( ) this conversation never happened
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
