There is no 2.0.7 tarball yet (IIRC, the regular install doesn't quite work); both Debian and Red Hat have 2.0.7 packages built from CVS, the problem doesn't affect the way these packages are built.
You could try compiling from the Debian or Red Hat sources (e.g. ftp://ftp.debian.org/dists/debian/{frozen,unstable }/main/source/*/glibc*.
Yet another example of RMS excluding anyone who is not using GPL. It cant be "free" if it's using the BSD license, according to the GNU zealots, (read gnu.misc.discuss for more info)
You may want to read the FSF's philosophy section instead, as you seem to have some misunderstandings about the issues.
There is however a difference between "free" and "(L)GPL-compatible". In the case of traditional BSD-style licensed code, like the sleepycat db, the advertisement clause makes it incompatible with the GPL (I've not studied the LGPL in detail, but I suspect it's like the GPL in this regard); see The BSD License Problem.
Code Crusader needs the JX library, which is under the syppp license which isn't Open Source (it disciminates against commercial development (note the difference with GPLed libraries: they disallow proprietary development, not commercial development)).
Thus Code Crusader still can't go in Debian proper. (Though in Debian's classification it is now suitable for "contrib", whereas it was only suitable for "non-free").
Slashdot Mirror
You could try compiling from the Debian or Red Hat sources (e.g. ftp://ftp.debian.org/dists/debian/{frozen,unstable }/main/source/*/glibc*.
You may want to read the FSF's philosophy section instead, as you seem to have some misunderstandings about the issues.
The FSF recognises the existance of non-(L)GPLed free software; see Categories of Free and Non-Free Software and has chosen to adopt e.g. X11 for GNU.
There is however a difference between "free" and "(L)GPL-compatible". In the case of traditional BSD-style licensed code, like the sleepycat db, the advertisement clause makes it incompatible with the GPL (I've not studied the LGPL in detail, but I suspect it's like the GPL in this regard); see The BSD License Problem.
Thus Code Crusader still can't go in Debian proper. (Though in Debian's classification it is now suitable for "contrib", whereas it was only suitable for "non-free").
For Debian, there's a project history available atr y/index.html
http://w ww.debian.org/~elphick/manuals.html/project-histo
Sounds like a caseof kaput in Caputh to me.