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

Re: licensing confusion

>>>>> "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.

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

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
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.

I could still be misunderstanding the question, though.


Evan Prodromou

Reply to: