Re: To MPL or not.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
George Danchev wrote:
> On Saturday 17 September 2005 13:45, MJ Ray wrote:
>>Damyan Ivanov <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate.
> 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. [...]
>>and I think this is a lawyerbomb:
>>3.4. Intellectual Property Matters
>>>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.
Thank you both for sharing your opinions.
I'll see what I can do in convincing upstream of FlameRobin/IBPP to at
least dual-license their work. I'll have to achieve the right attitude
and find the right words, though.
Damyan Ivanov 0x9725F63B Creditreform Bulgaria
phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993 fax: +359(2)920-0994
mob. +359(88)856-6067 ICQ 3028500 firstname.lastname@example.org/Gaim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----