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

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?



On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:18:53 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:59:16 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> > > > Could someone explain to me why firebird is in main?
> > >
> > > Because some ftpmaster hit approve, no-one found a bad enough
> > > bug to change it and this plan didn't happen yet:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00562.html
> > 
> > In your opinion, what's the best course of action, at this point?
> > 
> > File a serious bug against each firebird source package (firebird1.5
> > and firebird2.0), so that we can find out *why* the above-mentioned
> > plan has not yet happened?
> 
> I suspect it's not happened because ftpmasters decided to accept MPL,
> but ask by emailing them first, not by filing a serious bug.

Is <ftpmaster@d.o> the right address?
Asking questions to that address does not seem to produce answers from
fptmasters...
See for instance
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html

> 
> > Anyone volunteers to do a more thorough analysis of
> > the issues (I'm still quite in a rush, sorry)?
> 
> What issues?  The MPL/IPL's patent problems are not a problem if
> firebird is not patented, the LEGAL file doesn't seem to exist in
> firebird, the ftpmasters are willing to stand up for the source supply

I think the requirement to keep source online for 6 or 12 months is
non-free, even in case Debian could claim to comply with it (which I
still doubt).

> and Borland aren't harassing users with frivolous court cases.

I think the choice of venue clauses are non-free, even in cases where
there are no harassments going on (yet).

[...]
> If you are in a rush, please put this on your TODO rather than 'going
> off at half-cock'.

Well, I hope I am not the *only* person on this planet who cares about
Debian, the SC, the DFSG, and licenses.  I (re-)discovered what *I
think* is a serious bug which should be fixed ASAP: since I was not
finding enough time to do a complete analysis myself and file bug
reports, I thought that some other debian-legal regular(s) could get
interested and take care of the issue, if I raised it on the list...

Apparently, I was wrong: debian-legal seems to be much different from
how it was when I started to participate...  :-(

Disappointed.

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpfKs8q6772q.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: