Hi, Riley wrote: > This package contains files with no clear licensing status.
I agree. An explicit license would be better. > The authors would most likely be extremely difficult to contact to > get permission. Why do you think so? All authors are listed in the copyright file and most of them even with e-mail addresses. (I assume "unknown user" to be a pseudonym since an e-mail address for that author is given. But then OTOH, the MX record of foo.com is bogus: "foo.com mail is handled by 1000 0.0.0.0.") > This is extremely similar to #737395 I disagree. The copyright file of funny-manpages says "This set of manpages was collected from all over the net. No specific location can be given." and nearly all authors are listed as "unknown". This is clearly an issue. The copyright file of asr-manpages says "It was downloaded from ftp://ftp.winternet.com/users/eric/asr.pages.tar"; and lists authors for all manpages explicitly. So from my point of view the situation with asr-manpages is way better than with funny-manpages. It's improvable, though. And since "To the best of my knowledge they are all completely free" is not really a proper license, I fear that the RC severity given to this bug report by Niels is still justified. (I'd be happy if someone proves me wrong here. :-) Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <[email protected]>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
