Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) The MPL requires you to make the source code to your modifications > available for six-to-twelve months electronically _or_ to make it > available on the same media as the executable version. We do the latter.
This is wishful thinking. Distributing two files over the internet is not distributing them "on the same media". Especially when the license goes to such lengths to define electronic distribution. > In addition, old sources are available unofficially via snapshot.debian.net, > http://snapshot.debian.net/archive/pool/f/firebird2.0/source/Sources.gz If we were only talking about whether the code should go in non-free, this might be acceptable. In any case, as noted by Mike Bird, this avenue is not sufficiently well documented. But I hope you are not suggesting that this would be a DFSG-free method of distributing the code. It would require people to inspect each and every license before mirroring Debian on a local network. > 2) That you're not a lawyer or a DD means that you're not trained in > interpreting licenses, and that Debian's policies aren't based on your > opinion -- in both cases. That means that you're not in a position to > speak authoritively about most of the issues that come up on this list, > so when what you write is written in a way that people will misinterpret > as an authoritative answer, that's a problem, which is only compounded > if what you say is also incorrect. > > Licensing analysis requires an ability to understand subtleties of > language, and I wouldn't expect anyone who's competent at that to need > the above repeatedly explained. It is hard for me to take this seriously from someone who wrote [1] The DFSG refers to copyright licensing, it doesn't cover patents or trademarks. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00027.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
