Iceape progress

[Mike Hommey]

On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 02:11:43PM +0100, Andreas Metzler <ametzler at downhill.at.eu.org> wrote:
> On 2006-11-05 Mike Hommey <mh at glandium.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 01:49:43PM +0100, Andreas Metzler <ametzler at downhill.at.eu.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > > - Stop shipping MPL in a separate file in /usr/share/doc/* and append
> > >   its contents to debian/copyright instead. Policy 12.5 is quite clear
> > >   on that the license must be *included* in debian/copyright.
> 
> > The license is GPL/LGPL/MPL, and the copyright file is already huge.
> > Considering that, I think it is not a problem to ship one of the
> > licenses' text file separately. We already do the same for xulrunner and
> > firefox.
> [...]
> 
> Well, adding the copy of the MPL on the bottom of debian/copyright
> will not make it less readable imvho, and it will fix a possibly
> serious bug. Policy *really* is clear:
> 
> | Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
> | and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright.
> [...]
> | Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license,
> | the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL, should refer to the corresponding files
> | under /usr/share/common-licenses,[82] rather than quoting them in the
> | copyright file.
> 
> I would just hate if an iceape upload got rejected because of this.

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