angband-doc - license (of packaging?) too vague for FSF
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

Reference: https://bugs.debian.org/874575

Package angband-doc uses Artistic 1.0 license

Seemingly only packaging uses that license (with upstream parts lacking license?).

mladen created this task.May 16 2017, 4:56 PM

do parts of it use it or entire doc is on that licenses without the GPL dual license part?

Copyright file claims everything is under Artistic license:

cat /usr/share/doc/angband-doc/copyright

Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Upstream-Name: angband-doc
Upstream-Contact: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
Sources: http://rephial.org
Comment: This package was debianized by Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
  It was downloaded from <URL:http://rephial.org>

Files: *
Copyright:  1996-2006, 2016 Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
License: Artistic
 The documentation is freely available.
 .
 THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
 IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 .
 On Debian systems, the full text of the Artistic License can be found
 in the file `/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic'.

I should probably ping Manoj about this one as https://github.com/angband/angband/blob/master/copying.txt is telling a bit different story

mak lowered the priority of this task from "95" to "Freedom Issue".Aug 19 2017, 5:10 AM

copyright referenced at the Github page seems to not cover documentation, and also what seems to be copyright portected in the documentation package is only the _packaging_ of it: Manoj is a Debian developer, and at least none of the few documentation files I randomly looked at were authored by Manoj.

jonas.smedegaard changed the title from "[FREEDOM ISSUE] angband-doc" to "[FREEDOM ISSUE] angband-doc - license (of packaging?) too vague for FSF".
jonas.smedegaard edited the task description. (Show Details)
jonas.smedegaard edited parent tasks, added: T234: nil; removed: T230: nil.Oct 22 2017, 9:48 AM
jonas.smedegaard changed the title from "[FREEDOM ISSUE] angband-doc - license (of packaging?) too vague for FSF" to "angband-doc - license (of packaging?) too vague for FSF".Oct 24 2017, 11:59 AM
jonas.smedegaard added a subscriber: mak.

@mak Please block angband-doc from entering PureOS.

mak closed this task as "Resolved".Oct 26 2017, 10:01 PM
Will remove the following packages from landing:

angband-doc |    3.0.3.6 | source, all

Maintainer: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
Will also send CCs to: <<redacted>>

------------------- Reason -------------------
Freedom issue
----------------------------------------------

Checking reverse dependencies...
No dependency problem found.

Going to remove the packages now.
lk-admin synchrotron blacklist-add angband-doc 'License considered "too vague" by FSF'
jonas.smedegaard reopened this task as "Open".Jun 18 2018, 1:57 PM

Please drop blocking from Debian: Package has been dropped as obsolete now: See https://bugs.debian.org/874575

jonas.smedegaard lowered the priority of this task from "Freedom Issue" to "Low".Jun 18 2018, 2:00 PM

This is no longer a freedom-issue, just cleanup internally...

mak closed this task as "Resolved".Aug 26 2018, 2:42 AM

I don't think re-purposing this old bug for a blacklist removal request is a good idea - I was actually a bit confused to me to see seeing the bug appear again with this title...

In any case, the package is removed from our blacklist now, thanks for keeping track of these things!

Add Comment