Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's the rest of my original e-mail:
> I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I > believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860. > Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same > problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large, > and better than I would expect. > Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better > way to handle this? What severity should I use? > Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC > are (I believe) in the public domain. Right, not all RFCs are covered under a non-free license. Most of them probably are. Some of them probably have free licenses. Some of them have very murky copyright status. I would certainly welcome severity: serious bugs on any of my packages that contain non-free docs, including RFCs that are not in the public domain or otherwise have a free license. My opinion is that a mass bug filing is warranted if the person doing the filing has looked over the RFC in question and double-checked that it really does have a non-free license. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
