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

Re: To MPL or not.

On Saturday 17 September 2005 13:45, MJ Ray wrote:
> Damyan Ivanov <divanov@creditreform.bg> wrote:
> > IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate.
> > http://flamerobin.sourceforge.net/license.html
> > http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.txt

I think MPL is doomed. Nothing to comment about it.

> > My question is: Will FlameRobin be accepted in main?
> Only ftpmasters can say for sure. I think this is a practical problem
> for ftpmasters and mirror operators:
> 3.2. Availability of Source Code. [...]
>   if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must
>   remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date
>   it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a
>   subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made
>   available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that
>   the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic
>   Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
> and I think this is a lawyerbomb:
> 3.4. Intellectual Property Matters
>   a) [...] If Contributor obtains such knowledge after the
>   Modification is made available as described in Section 3.2,
>   Contributor shall promptly modify the LEGAL file in all copies
>   Contributor makes available thereafter and shall take other steps
>   (such as notifying appropriate mailing lists or newsgroups)
>   reasonably calculated to inform those who received the Covered
>   Code that new knowledge has been obtained.
> > Or should I try to convince upstream to change the license?
> I think so, if you can. Might be a difficult sell, though.
> > Is IDPL 1.0 more DFSG-friendly than MPL 1.0? (I make this
> > assumption because noone objected against recently uploaded firebird2)
> What are the differences?
> That assumption probably isn't reliable.

Agreed. This could be classified as legal bug.

About IDPL:

#11 - choice-of-venue - bad.
#13 - multiple-licensed code - look promising. We should try to convince 
upstream to double licensed the whole thing with GPL.

MJ Ray, please would you be so kind to add your pointers about MPL and IDPL 
at: http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/licences.html

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: