"Grant H." <sirgr...@member.fsf.org> writes: > A couple things, intent and what actually happens are two different > things.
Of course I understand that. But what bothers me in this and other cases is that you're asserting that it fails the DFSG without explaining *how* you think it fails the DFSG. And I've been around long enough that I helped *draft* the DFSG... > According to Debian legal (as I linked above) it currently does > not meet the DFSG which is the "expectation" it has to meet. That's not at all how I read the contents of the thread you linked to. Of course it would be easier if the software has a familiar license, but the lack of that doesn't mean it's not DFSG compliant. > Regardless, I got a response from Luca and he is willing to re-license > it under a established free software license which will meet the DFSG. > He says he will release an updated tarball. I will ask him to possibly > contact you when that is complete for re-packaging. Ok, fine. It's certainly easy enough to update the package if/when he does that. Bdale
pgpaTyesgekmJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
