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'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. 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.
* 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'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.
let me know what i can do,
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
