Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?

[Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu>]

Darren Benham <gecko@benham.net> writes:

   I agree, the NPL license isn't a package we'd want other's to emulate (say,
   over GPL) but I'd say keeping the source packages around "long after" is a bit
   of an exageration.
   Only 6 months is required after we put out a new version, and if we keep a
   3/year release cycle, that's only 2 months beyond the next release.  We don't
   have a way to keep the previous releases source tree around?

   On 12-Aug-98 Richard Braakman wrote:
   > This means that if we distribute modified versions of an NPL'd
   > program, we're going to have to keep source packages around long after
   > we have replaced the binaries with new versions.  We have no mechanism
   > in place for this.
   > 

What he means (I think) is that we have to keep previous *interim*
versions around according to the NPL.  i.e., if we have mozilla_5.0-1
through mozilla_5.0-26, then we have to keep *all* of those around.

Currently we *don't* have a mechanism for this.  When -26 comes out,
-1 through -25 are gone.