severity 361846 serious tags 361846 etch-ignore thanks On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:51:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Plus, this is an interface specification if I've ever seen one, and > >> interface specifications are not copyrightable under US law. > > I agree, but was hesitant to assert this without some corroboration. > > If this file is a non-copyrightable interface definition, the bug here is > > the presence of a copyright notice and license statement where there should > > be none. > After further discussion with upstream, apparently in some of the schema > files they are including substantial portions of the RFCs as comments, > enough so that their legal counsel felt they needed to include the > relevant portions of the license. > I believe the correct path for Debian going forward would then be to strip > all the RFC-originated comments from all of the schema files (including in > the source tarball), add a comment pointing people to the relevant RFC, > and then remove the IESG license as well. > For core.schema, there's only one comment that probably isn't long enough > to be anything other than fair use, but some of the other schemas contain > much more substantial comments. Ok, I hadn't looked at any of the schema files besides core.schema and don't have the sources at hand right now, so taking your word for the details, I agree (again :) regarding the proper course of action. I guess that makes the bug serious again since these comments are non-free; but I'm also going to take the liberty of marking it etch-ignore, since a handful of comments are probably not a good reason to hold up the release if we don't get to this bug on time. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
