Re: *URGENT* ftpparse licensing issue

Several points:

1) Casey, I said GPL *compatible* _not_ GPL. This includes BSD, MIT/X,
Public domain, etc.

2) I'll look up the ftpparse rewrite that was suggested. If this is
GPL *compatible*, I'll have the code patched.

3) As for prozilla, the Debian policy says that packages in stable
(currently woody) only get bugfixes and security fixes, not new
versions, so ProZilla 2.0 can't be included. (It's stupid, but we have
to stick to it.)

Andrew

On 5/22/05, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:04:17PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>=20
> > I am writing to request that the ftpparse library be *immediately*
> > relicensed under a GPL compatible license. This is needed because two
>=20
> well, you may request anything...
>=20
>=20
> > Debian packages, prozilla and elinks, both GPL, use ftpparse and
> > therefore violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We either need
> > this code relicensed or we will have to remove both packages.
>=20
> If that pleases you... but why should anyone care?
>=20
> besides: you could use the ftpparse rewrite inside the ftpcopy package.
>=20
> Regards, Uwe
>=20


--=20
Heritage Linux Group
http://www.heritagelinux.tk