reopen 533555 thanks On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Francesco Poli <f...@firenze.linux.it> (24/02/2010): > > Or maybe they are jokes that look like non-free clauses, I am not > > sure which one makes more sense or better describes the situation... > > Looks like upstream clarified the “joke status”? > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=18;bug=533555
There's no indication that "thatcadguy" is actually upstream. [At least, "thatcadguy" isn't listed as a Developer that I could see on SF in a few minutes of checking.] The meaning of clause 6 is rather difficult to parse and basically a complete lawyerbomb. Humor is fine, but humor in licenses with possible legal consequences isn't really something we should be distributing in main or contrib. If the real maintainers can actually be contacted by mail and get a binding response that clauses 4-6 are jokes, and promise to remove or make them clearly requests in future releases, I think that'd be sufficient. Don Armstrong -- Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going If in their place we find a thing more precious growing A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing -- Frederick Rükert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_ [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
