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

Re: licensing confusion

On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 05:12:34PM -0500, Evan Prodromou scribbled:
> >>>>> "MH" == Marek Habersack <grendel@debian.org> writes:
>     Me> Sorry I'm talking down to you [...]
>     MH> Oh, I'm used to dick wars here. And I will say it right away -
>     MH> your dick is bigger.
> OK, you got me. Zippers up. B-)
>     MH> It was a reflection based on the quoted gnu.org site. It was
>     MH> also induced by reading the Debian's mozilla copyright file
>     MH> which is vague in stating that some files are (solely)
>     MH> licensed under NPL or MPL (which, if true, would create a
>     MH> problem if GPL code was used from within those files).
> So, if I follow you, your question _isn't_ about emacs and python
> being shipped on the same Debian CD. That's fine.
Yep, no doubts here.

> The question is that the NPL isn't compatible with the GPL, and you
> think parts of Mozilla improperly link to or otherwise incorporate
> stuff that's under GPL. Or that they _could_ do that, and you're
> wondering what the maintainer should do in that situation. Is that
> correct?

> AFAICT, that's an upstream license problem. That doesn't make it not
> Debian's problem, but still. If, on the other hand, the _DD_ is the
Debian is the party that'd violate the license in that case, though. If,
let's assume, there is a conflict between libfreetype6 and Mozilla, then
debian should not link mozilla with freetype. 

> one doing the incorporating (say, by adding a GPL'd add-on to a piece
> of software with an incompatible license) that's a bug that should be
> fixed by the DD.
> A third, thornier possibility might be a package A that incorporates
> code for feature B and code for feature C, but the licenses for B and
> C are incompatible. I think that's a build issue: the DD has to choose
> B or C but not both.
That's what made me suspect Mozilla might be a problem (again, based on its
debian copyright file). I glanced at the Mozilla sources and it seems that
most of the files are triple-licensed, so no worries there (but the
changelog file should be updated nevertheless)

Although all that gave food for thought and created the theoretical (and
unclearly formed) question I posted :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: