From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat May 05 16:33:49 2018 Received: (at 31307) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 May 2018 20:33:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50865 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fF3sL-0002Wv-Mv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2018 16:33:49 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]:53756) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fF3sL-0002Wp-1f for 31307@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2018 16:33:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B04B1F954; Sat, 5 May 2018 22:33:48 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aquilenet.fr Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9pEnP9-RGQD9; Sat, 5 May 2018 22:33:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ribbon (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B754D2C199; Sat, 5 May 2018 22:33:46 +0200 (CEST) From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Chris Marusich Subject: Re: [bug#31307] [PATCH] Add MAT, the Metadata Anonymisation Toolkit from Boum References: <87wowrj9kq.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 22:33:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87wowrj9kq.fsf@gmail.com> (Chris Marusich's message of "Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:38:13 -0700") Message-ID: <877eohrgeu.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31307 Cc: 31307@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) Hello Chris, Chris Marusich skribis: > Should we refrain from adding this package simply because the author is > not maintaining it any more? I'm inclined to say "no", but one also has > to consider whether it is a a good idea to encourage people to use an > unmaintained tool for protecting their privacy/anonymity. I'm not sure. It=E2=80=99s risky, indeed. As time passes it=E2=80=99s likely to have mor= e and more known-but-unfixed security issues, which isn=E2=80=99t great. Leo, thought= s on this situation? > In addition, I notice that the license is GPL 2, but it seems the author > did not specify whether "any later version" can be used. Therefore, I > have listed this as gpl2, instead of gpl2+. Note that unless authors explicitly removed the =E2=80=9Cor any later versi= on=E2=80=9D phrase from license headers in source files, we write =E2=80=98gpl2+=E2=80= =99; specifically, Section 9 of GPLv2 reads: If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.