MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
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

MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
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

Re: MPL license

2006-04-02 Thread Mike Hommey
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:23:05PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marco d'Itri wrote: > >You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent > >decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this. > > > The MPL (section 3.2) requires that source c

Re: Format of the copyright file

2006-04-02 Thread Raul Miller
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 packa

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Craig Southeren
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

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Michael Poole
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

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Marco d'Itri
[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, Marc

Re: MPL license

2006-04-02 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
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 su

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
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 PROTECTE

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Craig Southeren
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

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Steve Langasek
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

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Josh Triplett
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-De

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Craig Southeren
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:22:31 -0400 Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread Craig Southeren
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 archi

Re: MPL and Source Code

2006-04-02 Thread MJ Ray
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > This is not the only issue with the MPL -- as Mike Hommey recently > reminded -legal, there are others[1]. [...] > [1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html Don't trust everything you read so much. That draft summary was written by a newbie