Bug#309124: marked as done (policy violation of 12.5)

[Andreas Metzler]

reassign 309124 iceape
retitle 309124 debian/copyright refers to MPL in separate file instead of including its contents
found 309124 1.0.6-1
thanks
On 2005-05-15 Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> wrote:
[...]
> > mozilla includes symlink
> >  /usr/share/doc/mozilla -> /usr/share/doc/mozilla-browser
> > and depends on mozilla-browser which includes
> >  /usr/share/doc/mozilla-browser/MPL-1.1.txt.gz

> This bug was being reported because Policy (and the Sarge RC policy) says
> that the full license must be contained in
> /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright, except for references to the common
> licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses/.  I'm not sure if providing
> additional license files in /usr/share/doc/<package>/ is an RC bug or not --
> I can't think of any reason why it should be -- but the submitter's concern
> has not been addressed, so this bug should remain open.

This is still the case in iceape. I had brought this up on the
mailinglist
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mozilla-maintainers/2006-November/000671.html
but Mike did not want to change it:

| xulrunner was not rejected while it has the same copyright file
| scheme.  Moreover, MPL is considered non-free, so we rely on the fact
| that the mozilla products are under GPL/LGPL (or almost, for the
| branch this version of iceape is based on ; but we now know that
| everything is indeed tri-licensed) to distribute them, not on the fact
| they are under MPL. From Debian's perspective, MPL is a bonus license,
| not the main one.

Mike, please tag as wontfix if necessary.
cu andreas
-- 
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute
tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects,
howsoever undertaken.                                (c) Jasper Ffforde