severity 367970 important thanks On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 12:12:08AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > This "hyper-retaliation" clause does *not* comply with the DFSG: > upstream should be persuaded to drop it.
Hello Francesco, Thank you for pointing this out. The thread on debian-legal just began today, and in the words of the message you linked to, "I don't think debian-legal has decided on this." It is under discussion and open at the moment, but no consensus has been reached either way. Personally, I also am not yet convinced that it fails to be DFSG-free, though I remain open to that possibility. I certainly expect it may soon, but in the interim, given that we do not know what the result will be, I am going to downgrade this to important. I am monitoring that conversation and will raise the severity again if necessary. In the meantime, however, bacula was removed from testing some months ago on technical grounds, and keeping this bug at serious will prevent bacula from getting into the hands of the users of testing now. That will do a disservice to our users as well. Hopefully we can get bacula into testing, and resolve this in short order so that we can release with it. I will keep an eye on the situation and make sure that we don't wind up with non-free code in the next stable. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
