Re: sugarcrm licence issue
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> 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'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-free.
That does mean I agree that all software only available under the MPL
has to be relicensed or removed. I don't have the energy or motivation to
actually try to push for this (also, "IANADD"), but if Mozilla officially
finishes their licensing change and makes a public announcement about it,
you should be prepared for those that do to start making noise again.
> 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)
Do you agree that the license is non-free? (It sounds like you do, calling
those clauses "nasty" and all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: