Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?
Darren Benham <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.