On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
..deleted > > > > The MPL states 12 months, and the GPL had three years (for certain > > methods of distribution) but I don't know of any license that required > > 100 years. I agree that any such period of time would be unfairly > > onerous. > > Quantitative points rarely make the difference between free and > non-free. If requiring source 100 years after you stop providing the > binary would clearly classify a license as non-free, then generally so > would 3 years or 1 year. I guess it depends on your definition of free. But that's a whole different argument :) ..deleted > > Is there any disagreement as to whether this would apply? > > I think the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition and would most > likely satisfy the license, though it could potentially cause problems > for our mirror operators. I don't see why. > But the question of whether Debian can > satisfy the license stands completely independent of whether Debian > considers the license Free. We can satisfy the licenses of every piece > of software in non-free, or we couldn't legally distribute them. Make sense. > I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this > requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally > distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as > far as the non-free archive. Given that the Debian definition of free basically means "GPL compatible", I never really expected anything else :) Craig ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Southeren Post Increment VoIP Consulting and Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.postincrement.com.au Phone: +61 243654666 ICQ: #86852844 Fax: +61 243673140 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +61 417231046 "It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile. Be yourself, no matter what they say." Sting
