UML25 — Generalization Relationship to itself?

Generalization Relationship:
A subclass of the owning package,
or a superclass of the owning package or
Does the owning package have a generalization relationship to itself?

The location referenced in the issue is to the list of literals for VisibilityKind. However, it is not clear what the issue
is really asking. The only use of the term “generalization relationship” is in the definition of “protected” visibility,
which says “A NamedElement with protected visibility is visible to Elements that have a generalization relationship
to the Namespace that owns it.” This means that the Namespace owning the element must be the general Element in
the generalization relationship (generalization is “to” the general element). However, Generalization is only defined
for Classifiers, not Packages, so there is no “owning package” here.
Disposition: Closed - No Change