Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote to the BitTorrent authors about the new license for version 4,
Thank you for doing that work. [...] > Their line of reasoning is that it such a clause is present in several > other licenses: the APSL, RPSL, MPL and Jabber licenses. The APSL and > RPSL are non-free, so that's not a problem. IIRC, the MPL was said to be > problematic because of the clauses talking about patents, not about that > one. However, the Jabber license is considered DFSG-free. Can you give a reference for the discussion, please? The Jabber licence preamble appears to contradict the licence text and I'm not sure if they're significant. I didn't find matches for legal in the time around the Sep 2001 package licence change. jabber.org claims that the jabberd (which I think is what debian has) is under the GPL. Most of the orig.tar.gz files I checked offered JOSL and GPLv2+ as alternatives. Maybe the debian/copyright file is just out-of-date? > Unless I'm missing something, we are not respecting these licenses when > distributing Mozilla and Jabber in the unstable tree, where the source > files aren't kept for 6 months as they should. I don't recall seeing > this discussion before, and it strikes me, as, DFSG-free or not, we are > violating these people's copyrights. Is there a way to deal with such an > issue? Yes. We apologise and stop distributing things under licences with which the archive network can't comply, even if it's not a DFSG problem. I can't think of another way, apart from redesigning the mirror software. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
