On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:19:35PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered > >> DFSG-free. > > > > No, the MPL is not clearly free[1]. See > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html > > The reasons used for declaring the MPL non-free are either not embodied > in the DFSG, or are based on an interpretation of DFSG 3 that I disagree > with. It may not be clearly free, but it's certainly not clearly > non-free.
... hence my choice of words and footnote. The conclusion remains: citing the MPL isn't enough to convince a lot of people that this or that clause is free. (Citing licenses with strong consensus, like the GPL, works; citing contended licenses doesn't.) -- Glenn Maynard
