Re: sugarcrm licence issue
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: sugarcrm licence issue
- From: Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:56:49 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] E1EaHbN-0005le-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- In-reply-to: <20051110175318.GD21815@zewt.org>
- References: <200511101548.29703.fboudra@free.fr> <E1EaE7H-0004Yc-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <E1EaE7H-0004Yc-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20051110155034.GC21815@zewt.org> <E1EaGR5-0005Dx-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <E1EaGR5-0005Dx-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20051110175318.GD21815@zewt.org>
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
>> stop this "The only code under the MPL is Mozilla" argument?
>
> It's not an "argument"--nobody is claiming that a license is free or non-
> free based on whether or not the license is being used. (I'm a bit
> disappointed that you're essentially saying "even if this license is
> non-free, you can probably get away with it anyway", though.)
The ultimate decision over whether a license is free or not rests with
the FTP masters. They can be overruled by a general resolution. The
presence of code under the MPL in the main section of the archive
suggests (but does not confirm) that the people who actually make the
decision believe it to conform to the DFSG.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: