[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?

Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
> The NPL's requirement for keeping old, broken versions around for
> months after they have been superseded may also be too onerous for it
> to qualify as "free".

How so?  I don't agree.

Personally, I consider it the package maintainer's duty to comply with
license minutae, not Debian's.  I'm positioned to offer every version
of some MPL'd s/w by virtue of CVS.  Since I can do that, I can comply
with the license.  Therefore Debian is in compliance with the license.
Therefore, the package can go in "main".

> In this case, we have a good reason for dealing with that topic: the
> NPL will require us to allocate disk space and mirror space for
> versions that we don't want to keep, and will require us to make
> exceptions to our archive management process to deal with the NPL'd
> packages.

> (If we decide to follow it, that is.  We already break the GPL's
> source distribution requirements for similar reasons, by keeping
> only the newest source even if we still distribute older binaries
> for some architectures.)

Again, I consider it the package maintainer's job, as the literal
party modifying the code, to deal with the details of license
compliance.  If I as a package maintainer am able and willing to offer
source access to old versions in compliance with the license, why
should Debian stop me?

I agree with you that I wish the source release clause didn't exist,
but, hey.  Oh well.

.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: