Your message dated Sun, 2 Nov 2014 13:04:04 -0500
with message-id
<CANTw=mnvkge4n4swp8kbysxonrh+4caakd97jrod0rhvs8m...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#689919: closed by Michael Gilbert
<mgilb...@debian.org> (re: subversion: includes a non-free file)
has caused the Debian Bug report #689919,
regarding subversion: includes a non-free file
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 ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
689919: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=689919
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: subversion
Version: 1.7.5-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
Hello,
while reviewing subversion/1.7.5-1 debian/copyright file, I noticed
that debian/contrib/svn_load_dirs is licensed under the AFL v3.0 .
This license includes non-free restrictions and is also problematic
with respect to Debian mirror infrastructure.
Please take a look at my own analysis [1][2] of the AFL v3.0, which
was sent to debian-legal a week ago and received no rebuttal.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00081.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00082.html
The above mentioned file (debian/contrib/svn_load_dirs) is thus
non-free and practically troublesome; it should not be included
in a package distributed in Debian (main).
Possible solutions I can think of:
(A) persuade the copyright holder(s) of
debian/contrib/svn_load_dirs to re-license it under
DFSG-free terms (such as the Apache License Version 2.0,
for instance)
(B) replace it with a DFSG-free equivalent, if any exists
(C) remove it from the source package
I hope this bug can be fixed soon.
Thanks for your time!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
> could you please clarify which consensus you are talking about?
> I am not aware of any news about this bug since October the 8th, 2012.
It may have been clearer to say that there is currently no consensus
that AFLv3 is a non-free license.
> I am reopening the bug report, while waiting for a clarification.
Consensus needs to be formed first (via debian-legal), if and only
then should this issue be reopened.
Best wishes,
Mike
--- End Message ---
