* Daniel Kahn Gillmor: > On 12/02/2009 02:00 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I misread the document. non-free is definitely a possibility. > > If you think non-free is a reasonable choice for now, could you package > up 1.34 and put it there while the request for DFSG-free licensing winds > its way through whatever red tape it needs to?
I don't want to maintain packages in non-free. But apart from that, I think it's fine. > i'd be up for taking over the package from you, but i'd want to know: > > * how are you currently maintaining it? For example, there are git > references in debian/rules, but no Vcs-Git-* in debian/control. There's a repository below <http://git.enyo.de/fw/debian/>, but I think I botched my local copy, and actually uploaded the current version without comitting everything. I might have fixed that now, but there are no guarantees that the version in the Git repository is actually the official one. Sorry about that. 8-( (If you clone from there, not that that the box only has got about 1Mbps of bandwidth to the Internet, so it's kind of slow.) > And i could find no indication of rationales (or details) for the > changes that were made to make the package DFSG-Free. looks like > contrib was removed, as were drafts of rfc2629bis. What made you > decide these were not redistributable? some of them (xml2rfcpp.pl, > for example) appear to be explicitly placed in the public domain, > for whatever that's worth. Some of the example RFCs are non-free under Debian's policy. Some parts of contrib were not DFSG-compliant, either, and if there were parts that were free software, I simply missed them. > * how are the requests for licensing changes being handled? who are > you currently in conversation with? where do those conversations stand? > can i help out? I asked on the tlp-interest list first, but that didn't lead to action from the IETF, as far as I can tell. I'm now following the official procedure, as outlined in the TLP document. > I'd like to have the latest version available so it's easy for debian > folks to participate in the IETF process. I'd also like to include > idnits in the archive for the same reason, though it contains some > boilerplate itself that i'm unclear on the licensing for. perhaps it > should just go in non-free as well. ugh. Yes, non-free seems to be the easiest option. Other possible improvements for the packge: xml2rfc phones home, this should be patched out. The XSLT file could be integrated into Debian's XML toolchain, I think, but I'm not sure how to do this (I had some trouble integrating the DTD, but it should work now). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
