Hello DFSG Team, as the FTP Team is not involved in DFSG compliance anymore, may I ask you to have a look at the issue brought up below and help resolving it?
Regards, Sven On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 21:59:18 +0000 Samuel Henrique <[email protected]> wrote: > Package: ftp.debian.org > X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected] > Severity: serious > Justification: Policy 2.1 > > Hello ftp-master team, > > I'm opening this bug to request an official position of the team on > whether the NPSL license meets the DFSG requirements or not. > > There's some divergence of opinions on the matter and I think the only > next step is to get an evaluation from the ftp-master team. FWIW I'm > currently on the opinion that the license should be considered free > due to its similarity with GPL2 (and copyleft licenses in general) but > Hilko (the other maintainer) is on the side of considering it non-free > due to a contamination issue. Sorry if I'm oversimplifying here, > Hilko. Both mine and Hilko's points are better written in the > references below. > > Related discussions: > Thread on d-legal: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2022/09/msg00000.html > Upstream discussion: > https://github.com/nmap/nmap/issues/2199 > > Please consider that upstream is usually quite responsive in that > Github issue and so we can make follow-up questions. > > We need to make a decision to understand if the current nmap we are > shipping (in all our supported releases[0]) is DFSG-free or not. This > decision should be done ideally before the freeze so we can take any > required actions. > > Thank you, > > [0] At least one issue that I've seen raised is present in all > versions of nmap we ship (since the first iteration of NPSL), which > would mean even our package in oldstable and stable is non-free. > > -- > Samuel Henrique <samueloph> > > -- GPG Fingerprint 3DF5 E8AA 43FC 9FDF D086 F195 ADF5 0EDA F8AD D585
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
