Re: MPL license

2006-04-02 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 12:19:05PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: Section 3.2 is not the only problematic thing with the MPL license. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html Agreed fully. MPL has more than one problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: MPL license

2006-04-01 Thread Andrew Saunders
On 4/1/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Snapshot.debian.net does not help because Debian made legally responsible for ensuring the code remains available by the MPL, and as we know all to well snapshot.d.n is not invincible.] True enough. However, once snapshot.debian.net has

Re: MPL license

2006-03-31 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
Marco d'Itri wrote: You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this. The MPL (section 3.2) requires that source code remain available for 12 after initial distribution or 6 months after distribution of a

Re: MPL license

2006-03-29 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure if it makes sense to revert that decision at this stage. It is never too late to fix bugs. You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this. -- ciao, Marco -- To

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Florian Weimer
* Joerg Jaspert: So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the current way to go? Reject, accept? Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed under the MPL. I'm not sure if it makes sense to revert that decision at this stage. -- To

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Walter Landry
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Jaspert: So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the current way to go? Reject, accept? Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed under the MPL. Quite a few? What packages are those?

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Francesco Poli
packages licensed under the MPL. Quite a few? What packages are those? I'm curious too: I would like to have a list. I'm not sure if it makes sense to revert that decision at this stage. It is never too late to fix bugs. 100 % agreement. A piece of software released solely under the MPL

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really non-free mails. So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the current way to go? Reject, accept? Reject, unless the authors have announced relicensing

Re: MPL license

2006-03-27 Thread Damyan Ivanov
Walter Landry wrote: Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really non-free mails. It is indeed

Re: MPL license

2006-03-27 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? debian-legal is just a mailing list, so it cannot have a position about anything. My position is that the MPL does not violate the DFSG, but it's not obvious if Debian can satisfy the requirement of distributing non-current

Re: MPL license

2006-03-27 Thread Walter Landry
Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walter Landry wrote: Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and

MPL license

2006-03-26 Thread Joerg Jaspert
Hi Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really non-free mails. So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the current way to go? Reject, accept? (Hopefully not a check every package if it has , like

Re: MPL license

2006-03-26 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really non-free mails. It is indeed non-free. So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only

Re: MPL license

2006-03-26 Thread Walter Landry
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really non-free mails. It is indeed non-free. It is, in

Re: MPL license

2006-03-26 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:05:52AM -0800, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of

Re: MPL license

2006-03-26 Thread Jacobo Tarrio
O Domingo, 26 de Marzo de 2006 ás 20:57:35 +0200, Mike Hommey escribía: The GPL does require something similar. Not exactly. The GPL requires you to provide source alongside binary; when you stop offering the binary, you may stop offering the source. However, under the MPL, you must go on

Re: MPL license

2006-03-26 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:57:35 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:05:52AM -0800, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian. It requires keeping the source around for every binary for at least six months.