Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it
>> in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would
>> be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says "You can't call it
> The code under it in the main archive is there under the claim that it's
> currently in the process of being dual-licensed under the GPL, so it should
> be very likely.
No, that's not even roughly true. Other packages that are MPLed include:
Portions of nail
Possibly parts of firebird (no, not the Mozilla project)
This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
stop this "The only code under the MPL is Mozilla" argument?
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org