[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 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

I am not a DD either. I maintain firebird2 for a couple of months.
Francesco Loverigne is sponsoring the uploads.

>>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.)

I call it "unfriendly". I'd be a lot happier it firebird2 was under GPL
or BSD-like license. I hate reading tens of pages of legal text that I
barely understand.

As of being DFSG-free, I have mixed feelings. I see marginal truth in
the interpretation of the source-of-venue clause as a hidden cost.
The other main concern (12 months availability of source code, or
6-months if new version is released) imposes restrictions on the archive
that I beleive are unfullfilable at the moment (and in forseeable
future). Breaking this requirement can be avoided by mirroring the
MPL-licensed parts of the archive somewhere that this requirement can be

Add to this that the company I work for needs firebird for its business
and you'll see why I put my efforts in maintenance of firebird, despite
the unpleasant license.

Hopefully, this clarifies my position enough.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: