[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more >confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the >debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not >list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1]. The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the ftpmasters. Especially the wiki contains obvious bullshit, e.g. Postfix is licensed under the IBM PL and I do not remember anybody ever seriously contesting its freeness. And while some of the debian-legal licensing kooks mutter about the MPL from time to time, there are many MPL-only packages in the archive and I do not subscribe to the theory that the ftpmasters are idiots who can miss "licensing bugs" for years (i.e. when a different majority forms on debian-legal@).
>More generally, as I understand the ten items that lead to the OSI open >source definition [5] are based on the DFSG. Now I wonder which extra >requirements the DFSG (suddenly?) include such that certain open source >projects choosing a particular OSI license cannot enter debian main. Actually, soon after being created OSI started relaxing their interpretation of the DFSG to allow licenses which were widely believed by the Debian community to be problematic. IIRC they also made minor changes to the OSD. It was after this that the DFSG-revisionists began to infest debian-legal@ and started inventing new criteria for DFSG compliance. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
