Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Sorry, hilariously badly misaimed. Back to -legal with this.
Matthew Garrett <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
>>> stop this "The only code under the MPL is Mozilla" argument?
>> It's not an "argument"--nobody is claiming that a license is free or non-
>> free based on whether or not the license is being used. (I'm a bit
>> disappointed that you're essentially saying "even if this license is
>> non-free, you can probably get away with it anyway", though.)
> The ultimate decision over whether a license is free or not rests with
> the FTP masters. They can be overruled by a general resolution. The
> presence of code under the MPL in the main section of the archive
> suggests (but does not confirm) that the people who actually make the
> decision believe it to conform to the DFSG.
> Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org