Re: Bittorrent licensing, take 2 [MPL and Jabber inside]
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:05:01PM +0200, Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Their line of reasoning is that it such a clause is present in several
> other licenses: the APSL, RPSL, MPL and Jabber licenses. The APSL and
> RPSL are non-free, so that's not a problem. IIRC, the MPL was said to be
> problematic because of the clauses talking about patents, not about that
> one. However, the Jabber license is considered DFSG-free.
> Unless I'm missing something, we are not respecting these licenses when
> distributing Mozilla and Jabber in the unstable tree, where the source
> files aren't kept for 6 months as they should. I don't recall seeing
> this discussion before, and it strikes me, as, DFSG-free or not, we are
> violating these people's copyrights. Is there a way to deal with such an
I don't know for jabber, but mozilla is tri-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL...
We don't need to fulfil the MPL.