On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:46:53 -0500 John Goerzen wrote: > 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.
You're welcome.
> 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 decided to file a bug report when some people had already expressed
their opinion and nobody seemed to think that such a clause could pass
the DFSG.
>
> 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.
Preventing packages that don't comply with the DFSG to enter main in
testing is a feature of RC-bugs, not a disservice to the users...
>
> 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.
The serious bug report was just a way to be sure the issue doesn't get
lost in a busy DD's todo list e re-emerge only once etch is out...
However it seems that things are going to be resolved by upstream soon,
and I'm glad to hear that kind of news[1].
Despite good news, I would prefer seeing the severity of this bug at the
correct level (that is to say: serious) as long as the bug is not fixed.
[1] for the interested BTS reader: the thread I previously referenced
includes statements by upstream who's willing to drop the
hyper-retaliation clause.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgp9xb0MBEiaz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
