On 26/08/14 23:00, Paul Richards Tagliamonte wrote: > Hello, ZFS on Linux maintainers, > > At a recent ftpteam meeting we discussed this package, and what to do about > it. > > Our consensus was that this package appears to violate the spirit of the GPL > at > minimum, and may cause legal problems. Judges often interpret documents as > they're > intended to read, hacks to comply with the letter but not the intent are not > looked upon fondly. This may be a hard thing for technical folks to accept, > but > in legal cases one usually isn't dealing with technical people. > > As such, this package has been rejected with the following notes: > > * Please take care to fix your naming issues. Please talk with the kFreeBSD > folks > on how to best handle the namespace. The kFreeBSD folks had these names > first, it's up to them how they're used. > > * We recommend that the DPL put a question to our lawyers, providing a full > and > complete background on the situation. (We are happy to help reviewing it > before > it gets sent off). We will defer judgement on the legality of distributing > ZoL > in Debian to them. > > Thanks, > Paul, on behalf of the ftpteam >
We (the Debian ZoL package maintainers) have been talking about this. The Debian FTP Team wants us to write a summary of the situation regarding the license stuff describing how ZoL avoided violating the combination of GPL and CDDL. Then they may forward that to DPL (Lucas) and then to SPI's lawyer. They would be OK to accept the package if the lawyer says yes. We are already writing this summary. If someone wants to help please send me or Aron an e-mail. Maybe we could share a RFC of the summary here when we think is ready, in order to double-check our understanding of the license stuff and get more feedback about it.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
