Stefan Hornburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Package: liburi-perl >> Version: 1.35-2 >> Severity: serious >> >> Hi! >> >> This bug has been filed on multiple packages, and general discussions >> are kindly requested to take place on debian-legal or debian-devel in >> the thread with Subject: "Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages". >> >> It seems this source package contains the following files from the >> IETF under non-free license terms: >> >> liburi-perl-1.35.orig/rfc2396.txt >> >> The license on RFC/I-Ds is not DFSG-free, see: >> * http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810 >> * http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation >> * http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments >> >> The etch release policy says binary and source packages must each be free: >> * http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt >> >> The severity is serious, because this violates the Debian policy: >> * http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg >> >> There are (at least) three ways to fix this problem. In order of >> preference: >> >> 1. Ask the author of the RFC to re-license the RFC under a free >> license. A template for this e-mail request can be found at >> http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments > > I would happily do that, but this RFC has a broad authorship: > > Network Working Group T. Berners-Lee > Request for Comments: 2396 MIT/LCS > Updates: 1808, 1738 R. Fielding > Category: Standards Track U.C. Irvine > L. Masinter > Xerox Corporation > August 1998 > > Please advise.
Generally, all authors would have to agree to the license terms. Further, if there are additional contributors to the text -- which for this document I'd consider to be a non-negligible risk -- they would have to agree to the same license terms. Tracking those contributors down may be tricky, but the authors may be able to help. I think the re-licensing can be made on a best-effort basis -- if we get permissions from the authors, and they can't name any individual that wrote specific portions of it, then that's probably sufficient. However, if the authors are certain other people contributed substantial parts, but cannot remember who they are, I think we lose. Alternatively, the document could be removed now, pending positive responses from all involved in the document. That's not a good solution.. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
