Reading your previous posts about MPL, seems that the main problem MPL
presents is that Debian does not keep source code for every change at
least 6 months, as required in point 3.2.
While this can be true for MPL packages being only in the archive it
is not if the package is being
Reading your previous posts about MPL, seems that the main problem MPL
presents is that Debian does not keep source code for every change at
least 6 months, as required in point 3.2.
While this can be true for MPL packages being only in the archive it
is not if the package is being maintained
On 3/31/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even without including license texts, this leads to a huge file:
I'd start out with a copyrights directory instead of a flat copyright
file, if that's easier to organize and manage.
That said, I'd probably represent that directory in the package
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:55:01 +0200
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading your previous posts about MPL, seems that the main problem MPL
presents is that Debian does not keep source code for every change at
least 6 months, as required in point 3.2.
While this can be
Craig Southeren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:55:01 +0200
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading your previous posts about MPL, seems that the main problem MPL
presents is that Debian does not keep source code for every change at
least 6 months, as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not the only issue with the MPL -- as Mike Hommey recently
Other people disagree. Reality is, the tests are not part of the DSFG
and people like you so far have not managed to persuade the ftpmasters
that choice of venue clauses violate the DFSG.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 12:19:05PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Section 3.2 is not the only problematic thing with the MPL license.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Agreed fully. MPL has more than one problem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained
source code that is is not in the SVN archive. Does this ever occur?
Security updates and NMU's come to mind.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On 02 Apr 2006 08:15:50 -0400
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..deleted
This is not the only issue with the MPL -- as Mike Hommey recently
reminded -legal, there are others[1]. GPL section 3(b) is considered
non-free in itself, but it is one of several options; a distributor
may
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:33:02AM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
The MPL has the same requirement as the GPL regard distribution, i.e.
distrbution of source on the same same media fulfills the license terms.
For electronic distrbution, the terms are met by the historical nature
of the SVN
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained
source code that is is not in the SVN archive. Does this ever occur?
Security updates and NMU's come to mind.
As do non-Debian
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 19:28:26 -0700
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained
source code that is is not in the SVN archive. Does
12 matches
Mail list logo
