On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 12:19:05PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> Section 3.2 is not the only problematic thing with the MPL license.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Agreed fully. MPL has more than one problem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
frastructure, can not guarantee that it will) follow this license.
Section 3.2 is not the only problematic thing with the MPL license.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/1/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Snapshot.debian.net does not help because Debian made legally
> responsible for ensuring the code remains available by the MPL, and as
> we know all to well snapshot.d.n is not invincible.]
True enough. However, once snapshot.debian.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent
>> decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this.
>The MPL (section 3.2) requires that source code remain available for 12
>after initial distribution or 6 months af
Marco d'Itri wrote:
You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent
decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this.
The MPL (section 3.2) requires that source code remain available for 12
after initial distribution or 6 months after distribution of a
subsequ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I'm not sure if it makes sense to revert that decision at this
>> stage.
>It is never too late to fix bugs.
You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent
decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBS
> Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
> non-free" mails.
>
> So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
> current way to go? Reject, accept?
Reject, unless the authors have announced relicen
> stage.
>
> It is never too late to fix bugs.
100 % agreement.
A piece of software released solely under the MPL license does not
comply with the DFSG, so every such package in main is a bug that should
be fixed.
Or are we going to have a GR to declare
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Joerg Jaspert:
>
> > So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
> > current way to go? Reject, accept?
>
> Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed
> under the MPL.
Quite a few? What packages are
* Joerg Jaspert:
> So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
> current way to go? Reject, accept?
Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed
under the MPL. I'm not sure if it makes sense to revert that decision
at this stage.
--
To UNSUBSCR
Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL
> >> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> >>> Looking at google I see a l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
debian-legal is just a mailing list, so it cannot have a position about
anything.
My position is that the MPL does not violate the DFSG, but it's not
obvious if Debian can satisfy the requirement of distributing
non-current sou
Walter Landry wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
>>> Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
>>> non-free"
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:57:35 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:05:52AM -0800, Walter Landry
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian. It
> > requires keeping the source around for every binary for at least six
> > mont
O Domingo, 26 de Marzo de 2006 ás 20:57:35 +0200, Mike Hommey escribía:
> The GPL does require something similar.
Not exactly. The GPL requires you to provide source alongside binary; when
you stop offering the binary, you may stop offering the source. However,
under the MPL, you must go on offe
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:05:52AM -0800, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> > > Looking at
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> > Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
> > non-free" mails.
>
> It is indeed
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
> non-free" mails.
It is indeed non-free.
> So, I have some packages in NEW that are MP
Hi
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
non-free" mails.
So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
current way to go? Reject, accept?
(Hopefully not a "check every package if it has ", l
19 matches
Mail list logo
