Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Russ Allbery]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> I recently did a survey of both licenses already listed in
> common-licenses and ones proposed for common-licenses using a Perl
> script that's now in the debian-policy Git repository.  The result was
> that the MPL version 1.1 was used by 654 binary packages in the archive.

> This is by far the best claim of any of the proposed new licenses for
> common-licenses, although it still falls short of the least-used license
> already in common-licenses (the GFDL, used by 875 binary packages in
> some variant or version) and certainly well short of the 5% of the
> archive standard that Manoj proposed (which would be 1473 binary
> packages).

[...]

> So I'm torn on this one, and the discussion also seemed divided.  I'm
> leaning mildly towards rejecting it, but only very mildly.

> Other opinions?

All of the reaction so far has been ambivalent or somewhat opposed, and no
one seems to be interested in arguing strongly for adding the MPL to
common-licenses, so I'm going to go ahead and tag this bug rejected.
However, I'll leave it open in case this action and resurrection of the
thread leads someone to decide to argue for it.  :)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Russ Allbery]

"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"  writes:

> The common-licenses was done (IIRC) to save disk space, so to use such
> criteria, I would count only packages with priority >= standard, or a
> proof that most systems have the verbatim license installed many times).

That's roughly the sort of criteria that we've been using, but note that
while iceweasel is not priority: standard, it's installed by about 50% of
the popcon-reporting systems, so it's very widely installed.  (Which isn't
horribly surprising.)

On the other hand, it's mostly installed on systems with plenty of disk
space.

> Personally I don't think policy should discuss so many licenses,

Well, bear in mind that we just saw a flood of this because I just caught
up from several years of backlog.  Normally we don't get these requests
all that often.

> so, I would like:
> - make clear and strong requirements for new licenses (e.g.
>   we should include only few licenses), or

This is roughly what I've been trying to do in my replies to the current
bugs.

> - move the choice outside policy procedure (e.g. maintainer
>   of base-files).

The base-files maintainer doesn't want to be the one who decides this.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

On 10.06.2010 21:45, Russ Allbery wrote:

I recently did a survey of both licenses already listed in common-licenses
and ones proposed for common-licenses using a Perl script that's now in
the debian-policy Git repository.  The result was that the MPL version 1.1
was used by 654 binary packages in the archive.

This is by far the best claim of any of the proposed new licenses for
common-licenses, although it still falls short of the least-used license
already in common-licenses (the GFDL, used by 875 binary packages in some
variant or version) and certainly well short of the 5% of the archive
standard that Manoj proposed (which would be 1473 binary packages).

On the other criteria we've used in the past, popcon, the MPL 1.1 fares
relatively well, since Iceweasel references it and could replace its copy
with a link to common-licenses and is installed by 50% of the systems
reporting via popcon.

I'm not sure to what extent including something in common-licenses is an
approval.  We included the GFDL because it was widely used and looked
likely to be more widely used, despite the fact that the project
definitely isn't very fond of it.

So I'm torn on this one, and the discussion also seemed divided.  I'm
leaning mildly towards rejecting it, but only very mildly.

Other opinions?


The common-licenses was done (IIRC) to save disk space, so to
use such criteria, I would count only packages with priority >=
standard, or a proof that most systems have the verbatim license
installed many times).

OTOH the disk usage is no more a big issue, so we could use
common-license as a pool of common and recommended licenses.

Personally I don't think policy should discuss so many licenses,
so, I would like:
- make clear and strong requirements for new licenses (e.g.
  we should include only few licenses), or
- move the choice outside policy procedure (e.g. maintainer
  of base-files).

ciao
cate



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Russ Allbery]

Ian Jackson  writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#487201: MPL-license"):

>> By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
>> inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
>> discussed here.  (I think it falls short by hundreds.)

> I don't think pure numbers is the only thing we should be considering
> here.  The costs either way in bandwidth and diskspace are modest.

> But having a licence in common-licences acts as if it were a kind of
> approval - even if we don't intend it that way.  So we should only put
> licences there that we actually like.

> I would suggest that the MPL is not a licence that we like and want to
> lend encouragement and visibility.

I recently did a survey of both licenses already listed in common-licenses
and ones proposed for common-licenses using a Perl script that's now in
the debian-policy Git repository.  The result was that the MPL version 1.1
was used by 654 binary packages in the archive.

This is by far the best claim of any of the proposed new licenses for
common-licenses, although it still falls short of the least-used license
already in common-licenses (the GFDL, used by 875 binary packages in some
variant or version) and certainly well short of the 5% of the archive
standard that Manoj proposed (which would be 1473 binary packages).

On the other criteria we've used in the past, popcon, the MPL 1.1 fares
relatively well, since Iceweasel references it and could replace its copy
with a link to common-licenses and is installed by 50% of the systems
reporting via popcon.

I'm not sure to what extent including something in common-licenses is an
approval.  We included the GFDL because it was widely used and looked
likely to be more widely used, despite the fact that the project
definitely isn't very fond of it.

So I'm torn on this one, and the discussion also seemed divided.  I'm
leaning mildly towards rejecting it, but only very mildly.

Other opinions?

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Ian Jackson]

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#487201: MPL-license"):
> By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
> inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
> discussed here.  (I think it falls short by hundreds.)

I don't think pure numbers is the only thing we should be considering
here.  The costs either way in bandwidth and diskspace are modest.

But having a licence in common-licences acts as if it were a kind of
approval - even if we don't intend it that way.  So we should only put
licences there that we actually like.

I would suggest that the MPL is not a licence that we like and want to
lend encouragement and visibility.

Ian.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 11440 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:

> By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
> inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
> discussed here.  (I think it falls short by hundreds.)

>From experience in NEW the MPL is unfortunately used often enough, so
inclusion into common-licenses should be OK (even if people would be
better of using other licenses, but thats a different topic).

-- 
bye, Joerg
(Irgendwo von heise.de):
Jesus war ein typischer Student:
- Lebte bis er 30 war bei den Eltern, - Hatte lange Haare
- Wenn er mal was tat dann wars ein Wunder



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 08-07-2008 14:42, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
> inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
> discussed here.  (I think it falls short by hundreds.)
[...]

Would it make any sense if we create a licenses-in-main
(or something with a better name) that could be used as a first
step and staging area for licenses that are candidate for
inclusion in common-licenses?

Probably parsing the Copyrights would then allow to some
kind of metric to measure how many files are pointing to a given
license.

Kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIc+SGCjAO0JDlykYRAuUNAJkBkSNkOxIkJciiY80zUe5G3MxmVACgzlkU
cf0XlsDKHxblG+lYSETBTZ4=
=dJMo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Bill Allombert]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:42:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Dmitry E. Oboukhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> (Incidentally, right now the iceweasel package doesn't include the MPL in
> debian/copyright, but instead in a separate file next to debian/copyright,
> which surprised me.  That's actually not allowed by Policy -- it prevents
> automatic extraction of licenses from the package -- although probably not
> a horribly important bug in the lead-in to a release.)

As far as I understand, the MPL is deprecated for iceweasel and is not
really DFSG free.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Mike Hommey]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:42:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Dmitry E. Oboukhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:
> 
> Thank you for doing this search.
> 
> By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
> inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
> discussed here.  (I think it falls short by hundreds.)
> 
> The only thing that makes me hesitate somewhat is that some of the
> packages that include the MPL are very popular packages that are widely
> installed on desktop systems (although not on servers).  It looks like
> over 60% of popcon-reporting systems have iceweasel installed and
> therefore have a copy of this license already.
> 
> Once again, we're stuck on the problem that we don't really have a clear
> way of making this decision and what criteria should count.  If we use a
> pure numeric criteria (10% of the archive), we'll admit almost nothing
> into common-licenses and some of what's already there wouldn't qualify.
> If we use a popularity-weighted number, we'll include a lot more, probably
> including MPL and possibly also the LaTeX license, etc., but it's not
> clear to me whether that would be a good thing.
> 
> (Incidentally, right now the iceweasel package doesn't include the MPL in
> debian/copyright, but instead in a separate file next to debian/copyright,
> which surprised me.  That's actually not allowed by Policy -- it prevents
> automatic extraction of licenses from the package -- although probably not
> a horribly important bug in the lead-in to a release.)

Note this is not exactly a problem, as the MPL is only one of the
possible licenses for the code.

Also note the copyright file is already 750 lines, the MPL text would
almost double this, and make the file less readable.

Mike



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Russ Allbery]

"Dmitry E. Oboukhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:

Thank you for doing this search.

By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
discussed here.  (I think it falls short by hundreds.)

The only thing that makes me hesitate somewhat is that some of the
packages that include the MPL are very popular packages that are widely
installed on desktop systems (although not on servers).  It looks like
over 60% of popcon-reporting systems have iceweasel installed and
therefore have a copy of this license already.

Once again, we're stuck on the problem that we don't really have a clear
way of making this decision and what criteria should count.  If we use a
pure numeric criteria (10% of the archive), we'll admit almost nothing
into common-licenses and some of what's already there wouldn't qualify.
If we use a popularity-weighted number, we'll include a lot more, probably
including MPL and possibly also the LaTeX license, etc., but it's not
clear to me whether that would be a good thing.

(Incidentally, right now the iceweasel package doesn't include the MPL in
debian/copyright, but instead in a separate file next to debian/copyright,
which surprised me.  That's actually not allowed by Policy -- it prevents
automatic extraction of licenses from the package -- although probably not
a horribly important bug in the lead-in to a release.)

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Dmitry E. Oboukhov]

MH> > The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:

MH> If you filter out packages from the same source, that leaves:

MH> > agsync: /usr/share/doc/agsync/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
MH> > alexandria: /usr/share/doc/alexandria/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
MH> > iceape: /usr/share/doc/iceape/MPL.gz
MH> > iceowl: /usr/share/doc/iceowl/MPL.gz
MH> > iceweasel: /usr/share/doc/iceweasel/MPL.gz
MH> > mozilla-bookmarksftp: /usr/share/doc/mozilla-bookmarksftp/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
MH> > xine-plugin: /usr/share/doc/xine-plugin/MPL.gz
MH> > xulrunner-1.9: /usr/share/doc/xulrunner-1.9/MPL.gz

MH> Is it really worth?

Additional the same source contain MPL in debian/copyright

for example my adblock-plus :)

full list with dups (my mirror includes sid, testing and stable):

$ find -type f -name \*.diff.gz | while read file; do if zcat $file|grep -q 
'MOZILLA PUBLIC LICENSE'; then echo "$file contains MPL"; fi ; done > MPL

$ wc -l MPL
162

$ cat MPL
./non-free/s/substance/substance_4.1-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./contrib/a/acx100/acx100_20070101-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./contrib/a/acx100/acx100_20060521-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./contrib/libj/libjdic-java/libjdic-java_0.0.20060613-8.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/libi/libical/libical_0.31-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/x/xine-plugin/xine-plugin_1.0.1~cvs20070523-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/v/vimperator/vimperator_1.1-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/v/virtualbox-ose/virtualbox-ose_1.6.2-dfsg-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/v/virtualbox-ose/virtualbox-ose_1.6.2-dfsg-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/v/venkman/venkman_0.9.87.3-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/t/tdom/tdom_0.7.8-5.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/t/tdom/tdom_0.8.3~20080525-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/t/tabextensions/tabextensions_2.1.2006031301-6.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/t/t38modem/t38modem_0.8.4-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/t/t38modem/t38modem_0.8.0+20050304-4.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/s/squeak-vm/squeak-vm_3.9.12+svn1820.dfsg-2.1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/s/sylpheed-claws-gtk2-extra-plugins/sylpheed-claws-gtk2-extra-plugins_2.6.0-1.diff.gz
 contains MPL
./main/s/sunbird/sunbird_0.2.99+0.3alpha1-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/s/sylpheed-claws-themes/sylpheed-claws-themes_20060615-2.diff.gz 
contains MPL
./main/s/saxonb/saxonb_9.0.0.4+svn20080322-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/s/schroedinger/schroedinger_1.0.3-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/s/schroedinger/schroedinger_1.0.5-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/s/swt-gtk/swt-gtk_3.3.1-4.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/s/swt-gtk/swt-gtk_3.2.1-5.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/s/swt-gtk/swt-gtk_3.4~rc3-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/r/rhino/rhino_1.7R1-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/r/rhino/rhino_1.7R2~pre-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pwlib-titan/pwlib-titan_1.11.2-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pike-public.parser.xml2/pike-public.parser.xml2_1.38-3.diff.gz 
contains MPL
./main/p/pike-public.network.pcap/pike-public.network.pcap_1.2-5.diff.gz 
contains MPL
./main/p/pcmanx-gtk2/pcmanx-gtk2_0.3.7-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pcmanx-gtk2/pcmanx-gtk2_0.3.5-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pcmanx-gtk2/pcmanx-gtk2_0.3.7-3.1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pwlib/pwlib_1.10.2-2+etch1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pwlib/pwlib_1.10.10-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pstngw/pstngw_1.3.1-7.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pike7.6/pike7.6_7.6.112-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pike7.6/pike7.6_7.6.116-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pike7.6/pike7.6_7.6.93-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pycairo/pycairo_1.4.12-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pycairo/pycairo_1.2.0-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pycairo/pycairo_1.4.12-1.1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pam-pkcs11/pam-pkcs11_0.6.0-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/p/pcmcia-cs/pcmcia-cs_3.2.8-9.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openh323-titan/openh323-titan_1.19.1~dfsg-4.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openh323-titan/openh323-titan_1.19.1~dfsg-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openoffice.org-dictionaries/openoffice.org-dictionaries_2.4.0~m240-2.diff.gz
 contains MPL
./main/o/openmcu/openmcu_2.2.1-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openmcu/openmcu_2.1.1-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openh323/openh323_1.18.0.dfsg-9.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openh323/openh323_1.18.0.dfsg-1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/opal/opal_2.2.11~dfsg1-4.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/opal/opal_2.2.3.dfsg-3+etch1.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/orage/orage_4.5.12.2-6.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/orage/orage_4.3.99.1-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openam/openam_1.1.18+20050304-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/ohphone/ohphone_1.4.5+20060204-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/ohphone/ohphone_1.4.5+20060204-2.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.org_2.4.1-4.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.org_2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch4.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.org_2.4.1-3.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/n/nukeimage/nukeimage_0.3-8.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/n/nukeimage/nukeimage_0.3-6.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/n/nqc/nqc_2.5.r3-5.diff.gz contains MPL
./main/n/nqc/nqc_3.1.r6-1.diff.gz con

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Mike Hommey]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 09:55:32AM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:39:36AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:
> 
> If you filter out packages from the same source, that leaves:
> 
> > agsync: /usr/share/doc/agsync/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
> > alexandria: /usr/share/doc/alexandria/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
> > iceape: /usr/share/doc/iceape/MPL.gz
> > iceowl: /usr/share/doc/iceowl/MPL.gz
> > iceweasel: /usr/share/doc/iceweasel/MPL.gz
> > mozilla-bookmarksftp: /usr/share/doc/mozilla-bookmarksftp/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
> > xine-plugin: /usr/share/doc/xine-plugin/MPL.gz
> > xulrunner-1.9: /usr/share/doc/xulrunner-1.9/MPL.gz
> 
> Is it really worth?

Now that I think about it, all mozilla extensions, such as venkman,
diggler, livehttpheader, etc. Also have the MPL text.

Mike



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Mike Hommey]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:39:36AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:

If you filter out packages from the same source, that leaves:

> agsync: /usr/share/doc/agsync/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
> alexandria: /usr/share/doc/alexandria/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
> iceape: /usr/share/doc/iceape/MPL.gz
> iceowl: /usr/share/doc/iceowl/MPL.gz
> iceweasel: /usr/share/doc/iceweasel/MPL.gz
> mozilla-bookmarksftp: /usr/share/doc/mozilla-bookmarksftp/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
> xine-plugin: /usr/share/doc/xine-plugin/MPL.gz
> xulrunner-1.9: /usr/share/doc/xulrunner-1.9/MPL.gz

Is it really worth?

Mike



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Dmitry E. Oboukhov]

The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:

agsync: /usr/share/doc/agsync/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
alexandria: /usr/share/doc/alexandria/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
iceape: /usr/share/doc/iceape/MPL.gz
iceape-browser: /usr/share/doc/iceape-browser/MPL.gz
iceape-calendar: /usr/share/doc/iceape-calendar/MPL.gz
iceape-chatzilla: /usr/share/doc/iceape-chatzilla/MPL.gz
iceape-dbg: /usr/share/doc/iceape-dbg/MPL.gz
iceape-dev: /usr/share/doc/iceape-dev/MPL.gz
iceape-dev-bin: /usr/share/doc/iceape-dev-bin/MPL.gz
iceape-dom-inspector: /usr/share/doc/iceape-dom-inspector/MPL.gz
iceape-gnome-support: /usr/share/doc/iceape-gnome-support/MPL.gz
iceape-mailnews: /usr/share/doc/iceape-mailnews/MPL.gz
iceowl: /usr/share/doc/iceowl/MPL.gz
iceweasel: /usr/share/doc/iceweasel/MPL.gz
iceweasel-dom-inspector: /usr/share/doc/iceweasel-dom-inspector/MPL.gz
iceweasel-gnome-support: /usr/share/doc/iceweasel-gnome-support/MPL.gz
libmozillainterfaces-java: /usr/share/doc/libmozillainterfaces-java/MPL.gz
libmozjs-dev: /usr/share/doc/libmozjs-dev/MPL.gz
libmozjs0d: /usr/share/doc/libmozjs0d/MPL.gz
libmozjs0d-dbg: /usr/share/doc/libmozjs0d-dbg/MPL.gz
libmozjs1d: /usr/share/doc/libmozjs1d/MPL.gz
libmozjs1d-dbg: /usr/share/doc/libmozjs1d-dbg/MPL.gz
libxul-common: /usr/share/doc/libxul-common/MPL.gz
libxul-dev: /usr/share/doc/libxul-dev/MPL.gz
libxul0d: /usr/share/doc/libxul0d/MPL.gz
libxul0d-dbg: /usr/share/doc/libxul0d-dbg/MPL.gz
mozilla-bookmarksftp: /usr/share/doc/mozilla-bookmarksftp/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
python-xpcom: /usr/share/doc/python-xpcom/MPL.gz
spidermonkey-bin: /usr/share/doc/spidermonkey-bin/MPL.gz
xine-plugin: /usr/share/doc/xine-plugin/MPL.gz
xulrunner: /usr/share/doc/xulrunner/MPL.gz
xulrunner-1.9: /usr/share/doc/xulrunner-1.9/MPL.gz
xulrunner-1.9-dbg: /usr/share/doc/xulrunner-1.9-dbg/MPL.gz
xulrunner-1.9-gnome-support: /usr/share/doc/xulrunner-1.9-gnome-support/MPL.gz
xulrunner-dev: /usr/share/doc/xulrunner-dev/MPL.gz
xulrunner-gnome-support: /usr/share/doc/xulrunner-gnome-support/MPL.gz

--
... mpd playing: Helloween - Lavdate Donibvm

. ''`. Dmitry E. Oboukhov
: :’  : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `~’ GPGKey: 1024D / F8E26537 2006-11-21
  `- 1B23 D4F8 8EC0 D902 0555  E438 AB8C 00CF F8E2 6537


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Santiago Vila]

reassign 487201 debian-policy
thanks

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:

> Package: base-files
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> Some of packages have contain the full text MPL-license. 
> (Ice(weasel|ape|dove), addons...).
> Please, include the file http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt
> into /usr/share/common-licenses.

Please read base-files FAQ. I do not decide about this but the policy group.
Reassigning.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Dmitry E. Oboukhov]

Package: base-files
Severity: wishlist

Some of packages have contain the full text MPL-license. 
(Ice(weasel|ape|dove), addons...).
Please, include the file http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt
into /usr/share/common-licenses.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature