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

Re: sugarcrm licence issue

Glenn Maynard 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.
> (We probably agree that such a relicensing is taking far too long for a "DFSG-
> fixing grace period", even for Mozilla.)

Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main,
that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled?

I maintain firebird2[1] packages and I'd be very badly surprised if I'd
have to ask for its removal. firebird is licensed under Interbase Public
license (IPL), and new files are under Initial Developer Public License.
Both of them are MPL-clones with all the nasty source-of-venue and
keep-source-available-12-months clauses. See them at the Copyright link
at [1] (too long to be posted here)

Relicensing is not an option IMHO, at least for firebird2. I have very
bad feelings about asking Borland to change their license :-(

[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/firebrid2.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: