Your message dated Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:14:11 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [NONFREE-DOC] Package contains IETF RFC/I-D
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: phpgroupware-calendar
Severity: serious
Hi!
It seems your package contains non-free RFC/I-Ds:
usr/share/doc/phpgroupware-calendar/rfc2445.txt.gz
web/phpgroupware-calendar
The license on RFCs is not DFSG-free, see:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810
http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation
I believe the options are:
1) Remove the file from the package (which may include re-packaging
the source code).
2) Move the files to a non-free package (which may also include
re-packaging the source code).
If you disagree with this, because this bug is reported for several
packages at once, it seems better to discuss this on debian-legal, in
this thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/25993
The severity is serious, because this violates the Debian policy
<http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg>.
I'm sorry if this report is filed in error, I went over many packages
looking for suspicious filenames, and there may be false positives.
Thanks,
Simon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.9.16.011-1
> When I looked over the new package, I noticed that it still contains an
> RFC inside the source package, inside a JAR file (which are ZIP files):
> pkg phpgroupware ver 0.9.16.011-2
> phpgroupware/javassh/applet/src/jta25-src.jar:
> jta25/doc/rfc854.txt
RFC854 was issued in 1983, and therefore AIUI predates the current RFC
copyright silliness. I don't think there's any reason to believe the IETF
has the rights to retroactively change the license on copies of this RFC
already in distribution.
If you believe there is still a bug here, please open a separate report so
that this (IMHO much lesser) issue can be tracked separately from the bug
with RFC2445 which has already been fixed.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--- End Message ---
