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

Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?

Martin Schulze <joey@kuolema.Infodrom.North.DE> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 	However, a list of common popular licenses that have been
> >  examined and are known to qualify would be a good thing, as long as
> >  no claim is made about correctness or completeness which may open us
> >  up to liability.

> I've attached such a list.

I wish that you indicated some more detail and gotchas with licenses,
even MPL, etc.  See below.

> Webmasters: Please consider adding it.
> <H2>Licenses that fit the DFSG</H2>
> While we prefer to use the GPL, BSD license or the Artistic license
> this is a list of other licenses that we consider DFSG compliant.  So
> packages that use either of these licenses may go into the main Debian
> distribution.
> <UL>
>    <LI><P><strong>Netscape Public License</strong> (NPL)<P>
>      This <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/NPL-1.0.html";>license</a>
>      is meant to be DFSG compliant.
>    <LI><P><strong>Mozilla Public License</strong> (MPL)<P>
>      This license is meant to be DFSG compliant.

I packaged up expat this weekend, which is MPLv1.  Here are gotchas:

* must keep every revision available for any requestor.  The Debian
  archive will not do this.  Cf /usr/doc/expat/copyright for how I do
  this.  Note: I manage my Debian sources w/ CVS so it's no problem, and
  I don't anticipate much demand for obsolete Debian revisions.

* must brand all files with their little form thingie at the bottom,
  where you can.  Obvious, debian/control cannot be branded that way.
  What a PITA.  Even the upstream maintainer (James Clark) didn't
  fully conform with this (i.e., the Makefile doesn't have the little
  thing in it)


* How does MPL diverge w/ NPL?

.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: