Dear all, the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1]. Also the conclusion drawn in [3] and [4] seem to contradict. More generally, as I understand the ten items that lead to the OSI open source definition [5] are based on the DFSG. Now I wonder which extra requirements the DFSG (suddenly?) include such that certain open source projects choosing a particular OSI license cannot enter debian main. On the other hand I am quite unhappy that more and more conflicting open source licenses seem to appear making code exchange problematic :-( Anyway I am asking as I wanted to package COIN-OR ( http://www.coin-or.org/ ) and as most of the packages are CPL licensed and the CPL is listed as 'status unsettled' in [1] and now suddenly the MPL seems OK [4] I am hoping the the CPL and all other OSI based licenses are too. Soeren [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses [2] http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00215.html [5] http://opensource.org/docs/osd -- Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, when you become aware of the real world around you, but you're still dreaming.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part