Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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) Questions: * How does MPL diverge w/ NPL? -- .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
