Hi Florian,
> first of all, many thanks to Noritada-san and Kinoshita-san for
> bugreport and analysis.
>
> Just for the record, currently I'm drafting a letter to upstream. I'm
> going to ask for a retroactive license change/upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0,
> so that this problem can hopefully be resolved for Etch as well.
>
> However, I feel rather uncomfortable at this as I don't trust my ability
> to express this correctly, so any help will be greatly appreciated.
> Furthermore, spare time is a scarce resource at the moment, so please
> don't hold your breath till I cough up something ...
Thank you for trying to contact with the upstream author. Since I am
not a native English speaker (nor a lawyer), I also feel insecure
about subtleties of expressions, but I'm willing to help you if I can.
I think the key points are as follows:
* Debian respects software's freeness.
* The old license of EDICT used in 2003 was considered to be "free"
in the Debian's meaning.
* CC by-sa 2.5 is not considered to be "free" in the Debian's
meaning, but 3.0 may be considered to be "free".
(ref. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Debian )
* We mistakenly included EDICT's versions distributed under CC by-sa
2.5 in the Debian's stable release since we were unaware of the
license change.
* We'd like the upstream author to upgrade the license to CC by-sa
3.0.
* It would be glad if a retroactive license upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0
is permitted.
* It is easy to upgrade a software's license from CC by-sa 2.5 to
3.0; the change is not big for normal developers, although it is
important for Debian.
P.S. Although correctly addressed to me, your message seems to have
failed to reach me. Curiously, I also couldn't receive a copy from
BTS; something bothers me. Fortunately, I can read your message via
the web interface of BTS. :-) So, please note that private messages
can vanish when replying to me...
Many thanks,
-nori
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
