Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
>> >the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more
>> >confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the
>> >debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not
>> >list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1].
>> The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the
>> ftpmasters.
>
> Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are
> acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here?
> http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license
> should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it
> is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main.
I've fixed the incorrect entry in the wiki and moved the MPL to the list
of DFSG-compatible licenses (including links to archived postings by an
FTP master)
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
