copyright file states non-free

[Debian Bug Importer]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #330295 http://bugs.debian.org/330295

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #330295 http://bugs.debian.org/330295

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:36:09 +0200
From: Daniel Baumann <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: copyright file states non-free

Package: mozilla-firefox
Version: all
Severity: serious

The debian/copyright file states that mozilla-firefox is licensed only
under MPL 1.1 which is a non-DFSG compliant license.

Please fix the file mentioning at least that it is licensed under GPL.
Please do also s/Upstream Authors/Copyright Holder/.

Regards,
Daniel

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: <email address hidden>
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:36:09PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Package: mozilla-firefox
> Version: all
> Severity: serious
>
> The debian/copyright file states that mozilla-firefox is licensed only
> under MPL 1.1 which is a non-DFSG compliant license.
>
> Please fix the file mentioning at least that it is licensed under GPL.
> Please do also s/Upstream Authors/Copyright Holder/.
>

AFAIK, this has been discussed before and since there are still some
parts left that are not yet relicensed, we cannot distribute it under
GPL et al.

Just my 2 cents.

--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.jwsdot.com/ | `- http://www.debian.org/

[Daniel Baumann (daniel-baumann)]

Alexander Sack wrote:
> AFAIK, this has been discussed before and since there are still some
> parts left that are not yet relicensed, we cannot distribute it under
> GPL et al.

If so (which I didn't know), why is it then left as-it-is (and even not
documented in the BTS)? The current package is non-free. This should be
solved asap, or the consequences should be taken.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: <email address hidden>
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 03:43:39PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> documented in the BTS)? The current package is non-free. This should be

What makes you believe that this is really the case?

--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:35:26 +0200
From: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:36:09PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Package: mozilla-firefox
> Version: all
> Severity: serious
>
> The debian/copyright file states that mozilla-firefox is licensed only
> under MPL 1.1 which is a non-DFSG compliant license.
>
> Please fix the file mentioning at least that it is licensed under GPL.
> Please do also s/Upstream Authors/Copyright Holder/.
>

AFAIK, this has been discussed before and since there are still some
parts left that are not yet relicensed, we cannot distribute it under
GPL et al.

Just my 2 cents.

--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.jwsdot.com/ | `- http://www.debian.org/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:43:39 +0200
From: Daniel Baumann <email address hidden>
To: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

Alexander Sack wrote:
> AFAIK, this has been discussed before and since there are still some
> parts left that are not yet relicensed, we cannot distribute it under
> GPL et al.

If so (which I didn't know), why is it then left as-it-is (and even not
documented in the BTS)? The current package is non-free. This should be
solved asap, or the consequences should be taken.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: <email address hidden>
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:52:46 +0200
From: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>
To: Daniel Baumann <email address hidden>
Cc: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 03:43:39PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> documented in the BTS)? The current package is non-free. This should be

What makes you believe that this is really the case?

--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org

[Daniel Baumann (daniel-baumann)]

Alexander Sack wrote:
>>documented in the BTS)? The current package is non-free. This should be
>
>
> What makes you believe that this is really the case?

Reading debian/copyright implies that the whole mozilla-firefox is only
licensed under MPL which is non-free. Therefore I request the correction
of this file.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: <email address hidden>
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:22:48PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> > What makes you believe that this is really the case?
>
> Reading debian/copyright implies that the whole mozilla-firefox is only
> licensed under MPL which is non-free. Therefore I request the correction
> of this file.
>

You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.

Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.

--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org

[Daniel Baumann (daniel-baumann)]

Alexander Sack wrote:
> You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.
>
> Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.

debian-legal has some problems with the license, it is not clearly
stated that it is 100% DFSG-compliant, therefore, if it is not 100% it
remains non-free (to my understanding; affects joice-of-venue and patent
clause mainly).

As least to my knowledge, there were no 'official' statement about
results of the investigations MJR did. So there is no (not yet?) final
decision.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: <email address hidden>
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:59:26PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> > You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.
> >
> > Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.
>
> debian-legal has some problems with the license, it is not clearly
> stated that it is 100% DFSG-compliant, therefore, if it is not 100% it
> remains non-free (to my understanding; affects joice-of-venue and patent
> clause mainly).
>
> As least to my knowledge, there were no 'official' statement about
> results of the investigations MJR did. So there is no (not yet?) final
> decision.
>

OK, I confirmed this. You were right: MPL is non-free. Anyway, because
of mozillas attitude to migrate their whole code-base to become
triple-licensed, we have an exception of the rule here.

So, this bug is wontfix for IMHO .... but I leave tagging to the maintainer.

--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:22:48 +0200
From: Daniel Baumann <email address hidden>
To: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

Alexander Sack wrote:
>>documented in the BTS)? The current package is non-free. This should be
>
>
> What makes you believe that this is really the case?

Reading debian/copyright implies that the whole mozilla-firefox is only
licensed under MPL which is non-free. Therefore I request the correction
of this file.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: <email address hidden>
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:33:12 +0200
From: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>
To: Daniel Baumann <email address hidden>
Cc: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:22:48PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> > What makes you believe that this is really the case?
>
> Reading debian/copyright implies that the whole mozilla-firefox is only
> licensed under MPL which is non-free. Therefore I request the correction
> of this file.
>

You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.

Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.

--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:59:26 +0200
From: Daniel Baumann <email address hidden>
To: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

Alexander Sack wrote:
> You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.
>
> Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.

debian-legal has some problems with the license, it is not clearly
stated that it is 100% DFSG-compliant, therefore, if it is not 100% it
remains non-free (to my understanding; affects joice-of-venue and patent
clause mainly).

As least to my knowledge, there were no 'official' statement about
results of the investigations MJR did. So there is no (not yet?) final
decision.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: <email address hidden>
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:15:32 +0200
From: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:59:26PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> > You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.
> >
> > Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.
>
> debian-legal has some problems with the license, it is not clearly
> stated that it is 100% DFSG-compliant, therefore, if it is not 100% it
> remains non-free (to my understanding; affects joice-of-venue and patent
> clause mainly).
>
> As least to my knowledge, there were no 'official' statement about
> results of the investigations MJR did. So there is no (not yet?) final
> decision.
>

OK, I confirmed this. You were right: MPL is non-free. Anyway, because
of mozillas attitude to migrate their whole code-base to become
triple-licensed, we have an exception of the rule here.

So, this bug is wontfix for IMHO .... but I leave tagging to the maintainer.

--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org

[Eric Dorland (eric-debian)]

* Daniel Baumann (<email address hidden>) wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> > You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.
> >
> > Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.
>
> debian-legal has some problems with the license, it is not clearly
> stated that it is 100% DFSG-compliant, therefore, if it is not 100% it
> remains non-free (to my understanding; affects joice-of-venue and patent
> clause mainly).
>
> As least to my knowledge, there were no 'official' statement about
> results of the investigations MJR did. So there is no (not yet?) final
> decision.

If there was no final decision/consensus, isn't it a bit premature to
start filing bugs against packages?

--
Eric Dorland <email address hidden>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: <email address hidden>
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+
G e h! r- y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:36:12 -0400
From: Eric Dorland <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Daniel Baumann (<email address hidden>) wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> > You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.=
=20
> >=20
> > Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-fre=
e.
>=20
> debian-legal has some problems with the license, it is not clearly
> stated that it is 100% DFSG-compliant, therefore, if it is not 100% it
> remains non-free (to my understanding; affects joice-of-venue and patent
> clause mainly).
>=20
> As least to my knowledge, there were no 'official' statement about
> results of the investigations MJR did. So there is no (not yet?) final
> decision.

If there was no final decision/consensus, isn't it a bit premature to
start filing bugs against packages?=20

--=20
Eric Dorland <email address hidden>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: <email address hidden>
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+=20
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+=20
G e h! r- y+=20
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDOa08YemOzxbZcMYRAmD2AJoCauet3pYvDGEPxsGGmKqcfsZpXQCfQpAs
kHSzYneO2ewegWAAeZdF7ss=
=syoR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1--

[Daniel Baumann (daniel-baumann)]

Eric Dorland wrote:
> If there was no final decision/consensus, isn't it a bit premature to
> start filing bugs against packages?

Well, I first thought there is no 'license-mix' at the code-base, so
there is just a wrong/incomplete debian/copyright which can easily be
corrected.

Now that I know that the code-base is mixed, I find it justified anyway.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: <email address hidden>
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:15:36 +0200
From: Daniel Baumann <email address hidden>
To: Eric Dorland <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

Eric Dorland wrote:
> If there was no final decision/consensus, isn't it a bit premature to
> start filing bugs against packages?

Well, I first thought there is no 'license-mix' at the code-base, so
there is just a wrong/incomplete debian/copyright which can easily be
corrected.

Now that I know that the code-base is mixed, I find it justified anyway.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: <email address hidden>
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

[Eric Dorland (eric-debian)]

* Daniel Baumann (<email address hidden>) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > If there was no final decision/consensus, isn't it a bit premature to
> > start filing bugs against packages?
>
> Well, I first thought there is no 'license-mix' at the code-base, so
> there is just a wrong/incomplete debian/copyright which can easily be
> corrected.
>
> Now that I know that the code-base is mixed, I find it justified anyway.

I still need some more justification that the MPL is actually
non-free. It's used in some rather prominent pieces of software. I
can't just move it to non-free unless people are relatively certain it
actually is.

--
Eric Dorland <email address hidden>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: <email address hidden>
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+
G e h! r- y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 01:44:30 -0400
From: Eric Dorland <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: copyright file states non-free

--gneEPciiIl/aKvOT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Daniel Baumann (<email address hidden>) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > If there was no final decision/consensus, isn't it a bit premature to
> > start filing bugs against packages?=20
>=20
> Well, I first thought there is no 'license-mix' at the code-base, so
> there is just a wrong/incomplete debian/copyright which can easily be
> corrected.
>=20
> Now that I know that the code-base is mixed, I find it justified anyway.

I still need some more justification that the MPL is actually
non-free. It's used in some rather prominent pieces of software. I
can't just move it to non-free unless people are relatively certain it
actually is.=20

--=20
Eric Dorland <email address hidden>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: <email address hidden>
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+=20
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+=20
G e h! r- y+=20
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

--gneEPciiIl/aKvOT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDQMU+YemOzxbZcMYRAjAsAJ9QjVqn8zapP/awJP4p1AaplG1X5QCfVET6
LnKEKi8+e9YgZti6l38qM+8=
=VLT+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gneEPciiIl/aKvOT--

[Ian Jackson (ijackson)]

This is absurd.

[Moritz Muehlenhoff (jmm-inutil)]

Hi,
this potential license problem is blocking (among others) the transition
of 1.0.7-1, which fixes several serious security problems. As the problems
some debian-legal people seem to have spotted haven't been noticed by noone
else since the MPL is in use and triple-licensing is already being prepared
this seems hardly justifiable. So please downgrade this to something non-RC.

Cheers,
        Moritz

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:53:37PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Hi,
> this potential license problem is blocking (among others) the transition
> of 1.0.7-1, which fixes several serious security problems. As the problems
> some debian-legal people seem to have spotted haven't been noticed by noone
> else since the MPL is in use and triple-licensing is already being prepared
> this seems hardly justifiable. So please downgrade this to something non-RC.

Maybe some release team members should tag this etch-ignore?

 - Alexander

 p.s. please take care that the bug is listed as To: or CC: when
      replying to this mail (e.g. /reply-all/).
--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:53:37 +0200
From: Moritz Muehlenhoff <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Please downgrade this

Hi,
this potential license problem is blocking (among others) the transition
of 1.0.7-1, which fixes several serious security problems. As the problems
some debian-legal people seem to have spotted haven't been noticed by noone
else since the MPL is in use and triple-licensing is already being prepared
this seems hardly justifiable. So please downgrade this to something non-RC.

Cheers,
        Moritz

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:02:07 +0200
From: Alexander Sack - Debian Bugmail <email address hidden>
To: Moritz Muehlenhoff <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: Please downgrade this

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:53:37PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Hi,
> this potential license problem is blocking (among others) the transition
> of 1.0.7-1, which fixes several serious security problems. As the problems
> some debian-legal people seem to have spotted haven't been noticed by noone
> else since the MPL is in use and triple-licensing is already being prepared
> this seems hardly justifiable. So please downgrade this to something non-RC.

Maybe some release team members should tag this etch-ignore?

 - Alexander

 p.s. please take care that the bug is listed as To: or CC: when
      replying to this mail (e.g. /reply-all/).
--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org/

[Steve Langasek (vorlon)]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:02:07PM +0200, Alexander Sack - Debian Bugmail wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:53:37PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > Hi,
> > this potential license problem is blocking (among others) the transition
> > of 1.0.7-1, which fixes several serious security problems. As the problems
> > some debian-legal people seem to have spotted haven't been noticed by noone
> > else since the MPL is in use and triple-licensing is already being prepared
> > this seems hardly justifiable. So please downgrade this to something non-RC.

> Maybe some release team members should tag this etch-ignore?

Is this bug about the fact that the MPL isn't free, or about the fact that
the copyright file doesn't mention the GPL?

The latter issue isn't RC; all of the information in the copyright file is
correct TTBOMK, the file just fails to mention that (the majority of) the
source is also available under a different, more permissive set of rights.
However, I don't see any reason *not* to fix that bug, either.

The former issue is RC, but I consider the etch-ignore tag appropriate with
the understanding that upstream is actively working on getting all of the
code formally relicensed. If this were to change, or if it should become
clear than some portion of the code will *not* be relicensed, then that is
an issue that cannot be ignored for etch.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
<email address hidden> http://www.debian.org/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:07:32 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: Alexander Sack - Debian Bugmail <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Cc: Moritz Muehlenhoff <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: Please downgrade this

--27ZtN5FSuKKSZcBU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:02:07PM +0200, Alexander Sack - Debian Bugmail w=
rote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:53:37PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > Hi,
> > this potential license problem is blocking (among others) the transition
> > of 1.0.7-1, which fixes several serious security problems. As the probl=
ems
> > some debian-legal people seem to have spotted haven't been noticed by n=
oone
> > else since the MPL is in use and triple-licensing is already being prep=
ared
> > this seems hardly justifiable. So please downgrade this to something no=
n-RC.

> Maybe some release team members should tag this etch-ignore?

Is this bug about the fact that the MPL isn't free, or about the fact that
the copyright file doesn't mention the GPL?

The latter issue isn't RC; all of the information in the copyright file is
correct TTBOMK, the file just fails to mention that (the majority of) the
source is also available under a different, more permissive set of rights.
However, I don't see any reason *not* to fix that bug, either.

The former issue is RC, but I consider the etch-ignore tag appropriate with
the understanding that upstream is actively working on getting all of the
code formally relicensed. If this were to change, or if it should become
clear than some portion of the code will *not* be relicensed, then that is
an issue that cannot be ignored for etch.

--=20
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
<email address hidden> http://www.debian.org/

--27ZtN5FSuKKSZcBU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDRECUKN6ufymYLloRAjkyAKCNgNqNfqMVtRZarpBao8m3kXdwbwCeLH6p
IiWPMIAzbaW7ruB+CQ55+ac=
=y4by
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--27ZtN5FSuKKSZcBU--

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

tags 330295 + etch-ignore
thanks

not all files have been relicensed to gpl. MPL is non-free,
nevertheless keep.

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:07:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Is this bug about the fact that the MPL isn't free, or about the fact that
> the copyright file doesn't mention the GPL?
>
> The latter issue isn't RC; all of the information in the copyright file is
> correct TTBOMK, the file just fails to mention that (the majority of) the
> source is also available under a different, more permissive set of rights.
> However, I don't see any reason *not* to fix that bug, either.
>
> The former issue is RC, but I consider the etch-ignore tag appropriate with
> the understanding that upstream is actively working on getting all of the
> code formally relicensed. If this were to change, or if it should become
> clear than some portion of the code will *not* be relicensed, then that is
> an issue that cannot be ignored for etch.
>

 - Alexander

 p.s. please take care that the bug is listed as To: or CC: when
      replying to this mail (e.g. /reply-all/).
--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:04:11 +0200
From: Alexander Sack - Debian Bugmail <email address hidden>
To: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: Moritz Muehlenhoff <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#330295: Please downgrade this

tags 330295 + etch-ignore
thanks

not all files have been relicensed to gpl. MPL is non-free,
nevertheless keep.

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:07:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Is this bug about the fact that the MPL isn't free, or about the fact that
> the copyright file doesn't mention the GPL?
>
> The latter issue isn't RC; all of the information in the copyright file is
> correct TTBOMK, the file just fails to mention that (the majority of) the
> source is also available under a different, more permissive set of rights.
> However, I don't see any reason *not* to fix that bug, either.
>
> The former issue is RC, but I consider the etch-ignore tag appropriate with
> the understanding that upstream is actively working on getting all of the
> code formally relicensed. If this were to change, or if it should become
> clear than some portion of the code will *not* be relicensed, then that is
> an issue that cannot be ignored for etch.
>

 - Alexander

 p.s. please take care that the bug is listed as To: or CC: when
      replying to this mail (e.g. /reply-all/).
--
 GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal
 <email address hidden> | `. `' Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org | `- http://www.debian.org/

[Eric Dorland (eric-debian)]

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.10
reassign 330295 firefox
reassign 289011 firefox
reassign 285905 firefox
reassign 278990 firefox
reassign 276576 firefox
reassign 240904 firefox

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:39:33 -0500
From: Eric Dorland <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: reassign 330295 to firefox, reassign 289011 to firefox,
 reassign 285905 to firefox ... ... ...

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.10
reassign 330295 firefox
reassign 289011 firefox
reassign 285905 firefox
reassign 278990 firefox
reassign 276576 firefox
reassign 240904 firefox

[Itai Seggev (is+debian)]

I think this bug may be saefly closed now, as the relicensing project
is complete:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html

--
Itai

Itai Seggev, University of Mississippi, Department of Physics and Astronomy

In 1997 a group of programmers started writing a desktop environment
to fix a travesty they didn't create. Their program promptly found
its way onto un*x systems everywhere. Today, still opposed by a
software monopolist, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you share
their vision, if you know you can help, and if you can connect to
internet, maybe you can join... the K-Team.

[Eric Dorland (eric-debian)]

tags 330295 fixed-upstream
thanks

* Itai Seggev (<email address hidden>) wrote:
> I think this bug may be saefly closed now, as the relicensing project
> is complete:
>
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html

Not quite, it's only going to be fully fixed as of Firefox 2. But this
is great news. Thanks for noticing.

--
Eric Dorland <email address hidden>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: <email address hidden>
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+
G e h! r- y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[Mike Hommey (mh-glandium)]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 10:07:14PM -0800, Itai Seggev <email address hidden> wrote:
> I think this bug may be saefly closed now, as the relicensing project
> is complete:
>
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html

This will be closed whenever the source tarball in the debian archive
will be the one containing the tri-licensed source code.

Mike

[Mike Hommey (glandium)]

tag 330295 + fixed-in-experimental
tag 355511 + fixed-in-experimental

quit

This message was generated automatically in response to an
upload to the experimental distribution. The .changes file follows.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:36:26 +0200
Source: firefox
Binary: firefox-dbg firefox-gnome-support firefox-dom-inspector mozilla-firefox mozilla-firefox-gnome-support mozilla-firefox-dom-inspector firefox
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Mike Hommey <email address hidden>
Changed-By: Mike Hommey <email address hidden>
Description:
 firefox - lightweight web browser based on Mozilla
 firefox-dbg - debugging symbols for firefox
 firefox-dom-inspector - tool for inspecting the DOM of pages in Mozilla Firefox
 firefox-gnome-support - Support for Gnome in Mozilla Firefox
 mozilla-firefox - Transition package for firefox rename
 mozilla-firefox-dom-inspector - Transition package for firefox rename
 mozilla-firefox-gnome-support - Transition package for firefox rename
Closes: 330295 355511
Changes:
 firefox (1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream beta release.
 .
   * extensions/inspector/build/src/Makefile.in,
     extensions/inspector/build/src/inspector.pkg,
     extensions/inspector/build/src/nsInspectorModule.cpp: Removed, the problem
     was lying in debian/rules. /me goes hiding under a rock.
   * layout/inspector/public/Makefile.in: Reverted previous changes.
   * debian/rules: Don't exclude inspector files when dh_installing the firefox
     package. We need the inspector.xpt file from the components directory. The
     files for the dom-inspector package are already excluded from the
     firefox.install file anyway.
   * debian/firefox-dom-inspector.install,
     debian/firefox-dom-inspector.links: Simplified.
   * debian/control:
     + Turn firefox-dom-inspector into an arch: all package, since the binary
       component has been merged into the firefox binary.
     + Adjust dependencies for binNMU safety.
   * xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix/Makefile.in, configure.in, configure:
     Use ${host_cpu} instead of uname -m so that firefox can safely build on
     s390x with a s390 target, and on amd64 with an x86 target.
   * uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsGNOMERegistry.cpp,
     uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsGNOMERegistry.h,
     uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsOSHelperAppService.cpp,
     uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsMIMEInfoUnix.cpp,
     uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsMIMEInfoUnix.h: Adapted patch from bz#273524 to
     make helper applications with parameters work. (Closes: #355511)
   * debian/copyright: Adjusted with updated information for firefox 2.0, which
     is now properly tri-licensed \o/. (Closes: #330295)
   * debian/rules: Install the MPL file taken from the upstream LICENSE file.
Files:
 d3ade04454940868d16543714a41097e 1128 web optional firefox_1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1.dsc
 d77161c04fefef1e0efb2a61e49177b0 46101824 web optional firefox_1.99+2.0b2+dfsg.orig.tar.gz
 22d57944a2ac0135f8483f8ca9141f6e 151838 web optional firefox_1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1.diff.gz
 bfd3194a083ce24c37120ae...

[Mike Hommey (mh-glandium)]

Version: 1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:36:26 +0200
Source: firefox
Binary: firefox-dbg firefox-gnome-support firefox-dom-inspector mozilla-firefox mozilla-firefox-gnome-support mozilla-firefox-dom-inspector firefox
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Mike Hommey <email address hidden>
Changed-By: Mike Hommey <email address hidden>
Description:
 firefox - lightweight web browser based on Mozilla
 firefox-dbg - debugging symbols for firefox
 firefox-dom-inspector - tool for inspecting the DOM of pages in Mozilla Firefox
 firefox-gnome-support - Support for Gnome in Mozilla Firefox
 mozilla-firefox - Transition package for firefox rename
 mozilla-firefox-dom-inspector - Transition package for firefox rename
 mozilla-firefox-gnome-support - Transition package for firefox rename
Closes: 330295 355511
Changes:
 firefox (1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream beta release.
 .
   * extensions/inspector/build/src/Makefile.in,
     extensions/inspector/build/src/inspector.pkg,
     extensions/inspector/build/src/nsInspectorModule.cpp: Removed, the problem
     was lying in debian/rules. /me goes hiding under a rock.
   * layout/inspector/public/Makefile.in: Reverted previous changes.
   * debian/rules: Don't exclude inspector files when dh_installing the firefox
     package. We need the inspector.xpt file from the components directory. The
     files for the dom-inspector package are already excluded from the
     firefox.install file anyway.
   * debian/firefox-dom-inspector.install,
     debian/firefox-dom-inspector.links: Simplified.
   * debian/control:
     + Turn firefox-dom-inspector into an arch: all package, since the binary
       component has been merged into the firefox binary.
     + Adjust dependencies for binNMU safety.
   * xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix/Makefile.in, configure.in, configure:
     Use ${host_cpu} instead of uname -m so that firefox can safely build on
     s390x with a s390 target, and on amd64 with an x86 target.
   * uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsGNOMERegistry.cpp,
     uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsGNOMERegistry.h,
     uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsOSHelperAppService.cpp,
     uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsMIMEInfoUnix.cpp,
     uriloader/exthandler/unix/nsMIMEInfoUnix.h: Adapted patch from bz#273524 to
     make helper applications with parameters work. (Closes: #355511)
   * debian/copyright: Adjusted with updated information for firefox 2.0, which
     is now properly tri-licensed \o/. (Closes: #330295)
   * debian/rules: Install the MPL file taken from the upstream LICENSE file.
Files:
 d3ade04454940868d16543714a41097e 1128 web optional firefox_1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1.dsc
 d77161c04fefef1e0efb2a61e49177b0 46101824 web optional firefox_1.99+2.0b2+dfsg.orig.tar.gz
 22d57944a2ac0135f8483f8ca9141f6e 151838 web optional firefox_1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1.diff.gz
 bfd3194a083ce24c37120ae584a50215 228828 web optional firefox-dom-inspector_1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1_all.deb
 7bb36b150ce443a63ec01605ec0934c9 48404 web optional mozilla-firefox_1.99+2.0b2+dfsg-1_all.deb
 9e93...

[Mike Hommey (glandium)]

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.21
tags 330295 - fixed-in-experimental

[Filipus Klutiero (cheal)]

found 330295 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.4-1