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
> <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/>