Your message dated Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:43:15 GMT
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line ted has been removed from Debian, closing #501638
has caused the Debian Bug report #501638,
regarding ted: license terms make the work non-free and non-redistributable
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
501638: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=501638
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: ted
Version: 2.17-1
The file "/usr/share/ted/Ted/TedDocument-en_US.rtf", which is a part
of ted-common (based on this source package), contains the copying
conditions which make Ted non-free.
The paragraph in its entireity:
"Ted for Linux: copyright and disclaimer
Ted is free software. By making Ted freely available, I want to
contribute to the propagation of Linux as a viable platform for
technical computer enthusiasts. As Ted is free software, I assume no
responsibility for the consequences of using it. It is up to you to
decide whether Ted suits your purpose or not. Ted is distributed with
absolutely no warranty under the terms of the GNU Public License. If
you include Ted on a CD-ROM or any other medium, or publish Ted in any
other way, it would be nice to tell me. Please send me a copy of your
publication or a reference. I like to see what happens to Ted and to
show off to my friends. You should not publish Ted or software that is
based on Ted without mentioning me as the original author in all
textual documents that accompany your software. If you publish Ted, or
any piece of software that is based on Ted, you must include a copy of
the original Ted documentation in your distribution. The Ted
documentation is part of the source code that you have to make
available to respect the GPL."
Objectionable clauses with comments:
> You should not publish Ted or software that is based on Ted without
> mentioning me as the original author in all textual documents that accompany
> your software.
What if my software includes Ted only as a small portion of it, and
comes with twenty or thirty textual documents, describing various
aspects of its operation, most of which are completely unrelated to
Ted. According to this, in each of these documents I should add, "oh,
and author of Ted is that Random J. Person". But even without
imagining such extreme case, this condition is unacceptable, it's just
like the old BSD "advertisement" clause.
> If you publish Ted, or any piece of software that is based on Ted, you must
> include a copy of the original Ted documentation in your distribution.
This is an "additional restriction placed on distribution", and those
are disallowed by GPL. And I guess that by "copy of the original" the
author means no less than an unmodified copy, which alone would make
that non-free, like one huge GFDL invariant section.
> The Ted documentation is part of the source code that you have to make
> available to respect the GPL.
Complete b-s. GPL v2 says: "The source code for a work means the
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an
executable work, complete source code means all the source code for
all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation
of the executable." An attempt to re-define this to include some
arbitrary human-readable documentation is ridiculous and absolutely
not legitimate.
With respect,
Roman.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.17-1+rm
The ted package has been removed from Debian testing, unstable and
experimental, so I am now closing the bugs that were still opened
against it.
For more information about this package's removal, read
http://bugs.debian.org/502776 . That bug might give the reasons why
this package was removed, and suggestions of possible replacements.
Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question.
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
--
Marco Rodrigues
http://Marco.Tondela.org
--- End Message ---
