Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:59:16 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: > > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Could someone explain to me why firebird is in main? > > > > Because some ftpmaster hit approve, no-one found a bad enough > > bug to change it and this plan didn't happen yet: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00562.html > > In your opinion, what's the best course of action, at this point? > > File a serious bug against each firebird source package (firebird1.5 and > firebird2.0), so that we can find out *why* the above-mentioned plan has > not yet happened?
I suspect it's not happened because ftpmasters decided to accept MPL, but ask by emailing them first, not by filing a serious bug. > Anyone volunteers to do a more thorough analysis of > the issues (I'm still quite in a rush, sorry)? What issues? The MPL/IPL's patent problems are not a problem if firebird is not patented, the LEGAL file doesn't seem to exist in firebird, the ftpmasters are willing to stand up for the source supply and Borland aren't harassing users with frivolous court cases. Do you know of active patents or frivolous court cases, or do you think the ftpmasters are wrong about the source supply? If you are in a rush, please put this on your TODO rather than 'going off at half-cock'. Puzzled, -- 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]
