On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:43:17PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > So where is the source for old versions stored? The alioth CVS is not > publicly available. On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:16:45PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > According To Anthony Towns, I Am Always Wrong Because IANADD/IANAL On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:48:17PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Under what rationale did the ftpmasters decide it is OK for Debian not > to respect the licenses of software we distribute? On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Dan Serban wrote: > I've refused to work > on past projects due to them being licensed under the MPL based on some > discussion had on this list a few months/years? ago. I sure hope I > wasn't wrong in doing so. Uh, guys, stop being insane. 1) The MPL requires you to make the source code to your modifications available for six-to-twelve months electronically _or_ to make it available on the same media as the executable version. We do the latter. In addition, old sources are available unofficially via snapshot.debian.net, http://snapshot.debian.net/archive/pool/f/firebird2.0/source/Sources.gz 2) That you're not a lawyer or a DD means that you're not trained in interpreting licenses, and that Debian's policies aren't based on your opinion -- in both cases. That means that you're not in a position to speak authoritively about most of the issues that come up on this list, so when what you write is written in a way that people will misinterpret as an authoritative answer, that's a problem, which is only compounded if what you say is also incorrect. Licensing analysis requires an ability to understand subtleties of language, and I wouldn't expect anyone who's competent at that to need the above repeatedly explained. 3) Not understanding the license or how we're complying with it doesn't mean we aren't. 4) That a license is DFSG-free doesn't mean it's "good" any more than a license not being DFSG-free means it's "bad" -- there are lots of reasons to not use DFSG-free licenses or software under the licenses, and there are lots of reasons to use and work on software that's under DFSG-non-free licenses. The DFSG is *Debian's* free software guidelines, that're meant to be useful for *Debian* to make decisions. Personally, if I've got a choice, I don't use licenses that are GPL incompatible, eg, which the MPL certainly is. Another complaint with the MPL is that it's designed for Mozilla, rather than general use by random organisations, which has led to a fair bit of unnecessary license proliferation as people make minor changes to the MPL to apply it to their software. But those considerations aren't ones that make a difference for DFSG-freeness. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature