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

[Karl Goetz]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:08:40 +0100
address@hidden (Michał Masłowski) wrote:

> > 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.

It should indeed, in this instance the problem was inherited directly
from debian.

> > 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.)

Thanks for the input, I'll try to forward them soon.
thanks,
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS)
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature