Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 15/10/07 at 08:33 -0400, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
>
>> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/05/07 at 11:02 -0400, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I do not agree with the removal and find the suggestion of it a slap in
>>>> the face for the time spent trying to work with upstream to get the
>>>> licensing issues that would allow the fix to be done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>
>>> The bugs about thoose license issues have been quiet for a very long
>>> time (since November 2005). If the situation has evolved, and you expect
>>> a change soon, it could be a good idea to document that in the bug logs.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>>
>> At this point I'm abandoning all hope that upstream will make any
>> effort to correct the issue. There appears to be no interest in
>> upstreams part to even respond and continually just passes it off as not
>> their problem. Consider any PHP Licensed PEAR module package currently
>> with a bug due to licensing abandoned and ideal candidate for complete
>> removal from the distribution unless someone with more free time on
>> their hands cares to adopt them.
>>
>> I've tried to get responses from upstream but the attempts were
>> useless and a waste of my time.
>>
>
> Arg. is there some place (besides -legal@) where coordination could take
> place about this issue?
>
I don't see where coordinating through d-legal would accomplish any
more than what I have. Upstream is not very cooperative and doesn't
appear to think there is anything wrong with the licensing or attempting
to fix it. Best hope is that those applications using it and wanting to
be included within Debian will write a new module, or find one already
written, that doesn't have the licensing issues and move to use it instead.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
