* Daniel Baumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Alexander Sack wrote: > > You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that. > > > > Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free. > > debian-legal has some problems with the license, it is not clearly > stated that it is 100% DFSG-compliant, therefore, if it is not 100% it > remains non-free (to my understanding; affects joice-of-venue and patent > clause mainly). > > As least to my knowledge, there were no 'official' statement about > results of the investigations MJR did. So there is no (not yet?) final > decision.
If there was no final decision/consensus, isn't it a bit premature to start filing bugs against packages? -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
