On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:21:53 +0100, Miernik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to gmane.linux.debian.user: > Can someone clarify the total confusion I have about aspell, it's > removal from stable with woody release 3.0r2, and non-DSFG-gness of > it's licence. > http://www.debian.org/News/2003/20031121a > http://master.debian.org/~joey/3.0r2/ > says "The license incorrectly says that it's LGPL but it is in fact a > unique license which is non-DFSG-free." > But there it is in "Accepted packages" section, while in DWN it's in > "Removed packages" section. > So is it removed or not after all? > What is that unique licence?
To the extent that I've been able to figure things out after the fact, aspell was removed because of a licensing conflict. Why exactly the license was not DFSG-compliant is probably not relevant because it seems that upstream switched to a different license. I'm confused about Joey's announcement too, and I've seen others wonder about it as well. I'm Cc:ing him -- could you please clarify? Is the "accepted packages" section wrong or is something else wrong somewhere? What is curious is that <http://ftp.debian.org/pool/main/a/aspell> contains a package in the 0.33 series which has a date stamp of Dec 7. Is this supposed to somehow be going into stable at some point? That's how I interpret this (out of the diff): --- aspell-0.33.7.1.1.orig/debian/changelog +++ aspell-0.33.7.1.1/debian/changelog @@ -0,0 +1,304 @@ +aspell (0.33.7.1.1-9) stable; urgency=low + + * Repackaged upstream source tarball with a newer version of SCOWL, the + wordlists making up aspell-en, that has the questionably licensed + wordlists removed. The aspell source package is now unquestionably + 100% DFSG-compliant. + * Gave aspell-en its own copyright file. It's not LGPL but rather the + SCOWL conglomerate license. + + -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:23:13 -0800 The previous changelog entry is by the previous maintainer, from February 2002. Would this have to wait until r3 -- if there will be one before sarge -- or is it possible for a package to creep back in sooner if it was temporarily removed? (IMHO this should be possible.) Incidentally the diff is humongous, containing mostly changes which I don't think are relevant to Debian, which seem to be generated by the autoconf tools. Is it correct to put those in a diff? /* era */ -- formail -s procmail <http://www.iki.fi/era/spam/ >http://www.euro.cauce.org/ cat | more | cat<http://www.iki.fi/era/unix/award.html>http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
