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
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
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
[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
* 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
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?
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
17 matches
Mail list logo