Le mercredi 30 mars 2005 � 22:42 +0000, MJ Ray a �crit : > 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.
Indeed, but I couldn't find any references telling the JOSL is non-free. It seems it was uploaded without checking the license... > 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 file is just out-of-date? That means distributing jabber isn't a problem, fixing the copyright file should be enough. > > 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. That means stopping to distribute mozilla? That's a great pain. It seems that mozilla's relicensing effort is advancing ; maybe we are at a time where we can drop the un-relicensed files. The firefox and thunderbird case is more problematic, as they are released only under the MPL. > I can't think of another way, apart from > redesigning the mirror software. Just when we are considering to drop some architectures to spare some mirror space? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
