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

Re: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 04:32:30 +0100 David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net> wrote:

The acrimony stimulated by the questioning of the mozilla license this late in
the sarge release process is no small matter.

It probably doesn't matter too much. debian-legal and licensing@mozilla both seem not to move particularly quickly on things of this seriousness. That's probably quite right. Lots of deep thinking helps this. I think part of the acrimony was caused by a draft summary 2 days after the first thread many of us say; then that being reported in DWN.

Anyway, the current mozilla-firefox package seems to have far more immediate bugs which stop it getting into unstable. Presumably this means that there will be an old version in sarge, if that's fixed very soon. I've tried to solve 254522 (with a *very* steep learning curve to play with a non-debianised build for comparison) but I can't find a way. Maybe one of these moz-experts who flames us over the licence will help, or maybe they don't really care about mozilla as much as kicking debian-legal?

I know there are other packages under MPL, but if:

1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;

2. we get the necessary agreement from upstreams about:
 a. our changelogs being acceptable notice of LEGAL change;
 b. our archives being suitable archival of modifications;
 c. general waiver of choice of venue (depending on 1);

then I don't see any other problems to resolve. (I might have forgotten something, as I am only human.) The MPL is a fugly licence, though, IMO.

Rest assured that I definitely don't want MPL stuff removed if it is intended as free software and I hope we can work together to solve any problems, *once* we know reasonably surely what problems exist.

this sort of wrangling is done based on tests (Chinese Dissident, etc) which
few are aware of makes the situation worse.

I'd like to see the tests explained, but few seem to be aware of any specific legalities of free software, even those who ought to know. (For example, the licence author's "copyright" page containing only trademark details, which I noticed earlier today.) debian-legal needs to "inreach" better because I have worries about NM, as you may know.

MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what
my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden

Reply to: