Re: Why is firebird in Debian? (original) (raw)

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18🔞53 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:

Francesco Poli frx@firenze.linux.it wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:59:16 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:

Francesco Poli frx@firenze.linux.it

Could someone explain to me why firebird is in main?

Because some ftpmaster hit approve, no-one found a bad enough bug to change it and this plan didn't happen yet: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00562.html

In your opinion, what's the best course of action, at this point?

File a serious bug against each firebird source package (firebird1.5 and firebird2.0), so that we can find out why the above-mentioned plan has not yet happened?

I suspect it's not happened because ftpmasters decided to accept MPL, but ask by emailing them first, not by filing a serious bug.

Is ftpmaster@d.o the right address? Asking questions to that address does not seem to produce answers from fptmasters... See for instance http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html

Anyone volunteers to do a more thorough analysis of the issues (I'm still quite in a rush, sorry)?

What issues? The MPL/IPL's patent problems are not a problem if firebird is not patented, the LEGAL file doesn't seem to exist in firebird, the ftpmasters are willing to stand up for the source supply

I think the requirement to keep source online for 6 or 12 months is non-free, even in case Debian could claim to comply with it (which I still doubt).

and Borland aren't harassing users with frivolous court cases.

I think the choice of venue clauses are non-free, even in cases where there are no harassments going on (yet).

[...]

If you are in a rush, please put this on your TODO rather than 'going off at half-cock'.

Well, I hope I am not the only person on this planet who cares about Debian, the SC, the DFSG, and licenses. I (re-)discovered what I think is a serious bug which should be fixed ASAP: since I was not finding enough time to do a complete analysis myself and file bug reports, I thought that some other debian-legal regular(s) could get interested and take care of the issue, if I raised it on the list...

Apparently, I was wrong: debian-legal seems to be much different from how it was when I started to participate... :-(

Disappointed.

-- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment:<pgpzWmRYllKfi.pgp>
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: