-----Original Message----- >If the NPL is DFSG complient, which I think it is according to my memories, >it should be listed in the DFSG/SC. > >If the NPL is not DFSG complient, I believe, we should state why we >don't consider it as DFSG complient. > >In either case, could the web-master team put this on their todo list >please? > >Regards, > > Joey
I think it DFSG complient. >From http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/ "In drafting this license, we attempted to balance the needs of several different constituencies: the free software development community, commercial programmers, and Netscape itself. Our intent with this license is to promote a Communicator development community on the Net and to release the source code under a license that supports this community, yet still allows Netscape to meet its business goals going forward. We believe this license satisfies the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which provide a commonly accepted definition of ``free software,........"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >From http://www.debian.org/news#19980306b "6 Mar 1998: Netscape turns to Debian for Licensing Guidance! When Netscape decided to make their client software free, they used the Debian Free Software Guidelines for a guide on how to write their license. You can find the draft Netscape license at http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/. This is a historic day for us, since it means that Netscape will eventually be in the "main" part of Debian and all Linux systems, not the "non-free" section any longer! ............." Adrián De León [EMAIL PROTECTED]
