Hi there! I put back d-release to the cc: list, since we previously asked for their help on this matter.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:01:31 +0100, Steffen Joeris wrote: > I am upset that you again raised the severity without consulting > anyone. Which, sadly, went against my specific request to not play the severity-change game anymore [1]. > The package as it stands is DFSG free and the getweb script is there > for the convenience of the users as well as the documentation. Your > arguments haven't changed my opinion. FWIW, I completely agree with Steffen here. > However, it doesn't look like we are finding an agreement on this > issue. I have pinged the release team on IRC for a statement, but > maybe this issue deserves some attention from another body of debian. > Therefore, I suggest we write up a paragraph for the TC following > their guidelines[0]. Since the TC seems to be the only possible solution, let's go with it. If it's needed, I can go *again* through the sources, spotting the copyright owners and licenses for each file Debian ships (I, in purpose, considered only what Debian includes in its package, which is clearly marked as $UPSTREAMVERSIONdfsg-$DEBIANVERSION). > My proposal would be: > > Dear TC members > > Bug #449497 has reported against foo2zjs. The maintainers and the > submitter do not seem to reach an agreement. I would change that underlying that not only the foo2zjs maintainers, but also other people (including a DD) agree [2]. Moreover, you can find other DDs opinion on the thread on d-legal [3], which I looked at quickly since, frankly speaking, things got repeated and repeated again with no step forward. > The problem is as follows. The submitter sees the inclusion of the > getweb script as a violation of the DFSG. The script is provided by > upstream to download non-free firmware from his upstream webpage. The > package includes documentation in README.Debian and a GUI interface > (hannah-foo2zjs) around the getweb script for the user's > convenience. Some printers need this non-free firmware to run, others > don't. More information can be found in the bugreport. Could we > please ask you to settle this dispute? It seems OK to me. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca Footnotes: [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=449497#125 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=yes&bug=449497#39 [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00103.html
pgpuhxuAdx5rE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
