Re: [GNU-linux-libre] potentially tained/non-free software

[Michał Masłowski]

> batik_1.7 has a non-free file
> https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?34579
> -> I'm not sure if its sane to repack a .jar, I'll need to investigate
>    more.

The jar is built from fop.  I don't know Debian/gNewSense policy on
this, in my opinion it should depend on a separate package with fop's
jars.

> bacula has a freedom problem
> https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?34578
> - could i get some input on this bug please? Does anyone else agree
>   with jasons interpretation of the licence? if its generally agreed to
>   be a problem i'll report a bug in debian. This appears to be the same
>   as https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=34424 ,
>   so the answer would be good there too :)

I don't see a difference between making derived works or modifying, so I
agree.

(I've blacklisted all of these packages (including fop) in Parabola,
except for beav which I couldn't find there.)

pgpnT5ZS9H2Vg.pgp
Description: PGP signature