MPL and Source Code

[Josh Triplett]

Craig Southeren wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:13:32 -0400
> Anthony DeRobertis <anthony at derobert.net> wrote:
> 
>> Craig Southeren wrote:
>>> This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the
>>> GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer
>>> distributed, then the source no longer has to be distributed either.
>>> As a user, the seems more than a little unreasonable, but if that's what
>>> the license says......
>>>
>>> The MPL requirement for 12 months seems quite reasonable, and I can't
>>> see that any packager (Debian included) would have a problem with
>>> meeting it.
>>>   
>> Well, first off, we have to set a boundary somewhere: While 1 year may 
>> seem reasonable, certainly 100 is not. Debian has chosen "for as long as 
>> the binary is being distributed" as our line between reasonable and 
>> unreasonable. There are several reasons that spring to mind:
> 
> Not sure where the 100 years came from - I certainly never proposed it! :)
> 
> The MPL states 12 months, and the GPL had three years (for certain
> methods of distribution) but I don't know of any license that required
> 100 years. I agree that any such period of time would be unfairly
> onerous.

Quantitative points rarely make the difference between free and
non-free.  If requiring source 100 years after you stop providing the
binary would clearly classify a license as non-free, then generally so
would 3 years or 1 year.

[snip Anthony's excellent practical arguments against requiring source
longer than binaries]

> I don't see that the MPL (or the GPL) requires that there are
> pre-packaged source packages available that correspond one-to-one basis
> for executable packages.

Most likely not, given sufficient care taken with the repository.

> As such, I think that the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition of
> electronic distribution for the terms of the MPL - provided that there
> are appropriate tags/revision markers available for each identified
> release, AND provided the revision control system is publically
> available, AND provided the revision control system contains all of the
> sources, AND provided historical revision information is not purged
> within 12 months of a release.
> 
> Is there is any reason why any of these requirements would not be met?
> 
> Is there any disagreement as to whether this would apply?

I think the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition and would most
likely satisfy the license, though it could potentially cause problems
for our mirror operators.  But the question of whether Debian can
satisfy the license stands completely independent of whether Debian
considers the license Free.  We can satisfy the licenses of every piece
of software in non-free, or we couldn't legally distribute them.

I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as
far as the non-free archive.

- Josh Triplett


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-voip-maintainers/attachments/20060405/28646a0b/signature-0001.pgp