Re: *URGENT* ftpparse licensing issue

On Monday 23 May 2005 09:39, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> 1) Casey, I said GPL *compatible* _not_ GPL. This includes BSD, MIT/X,
> Public domain, etc.

So is that why Debian refused to include KDE for all the years that QT was 
QPL-only?  In any case, it's still a draconian policy to exclude 
non-GPL-compatible free software licenses.

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

LOL.

> 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.)

Who besides Debian users, who have chosen by the act of using Debian to 
exclude themselves from the evils of GPL-incompatibility and thus should 
understand that they will not be able to use all software and will run into 
these problems time and time again, cares?  It's not acceptable to proclaim 
to various authors of respected software that their product must be 
relicensed, and NOW.  Authors don't often choose licensing options lightly, 
and they aren't going to relicense something for whomever has the latest idea 
of what the license should be.

Cheers,
-- 
Casey Allen Shobe | http://casey.shobe.info
[email protected] | cell 425-443-4653
AIM & Yahoo:  SomeLinuxGuy | ICQ:  1494523
SeattleServer.com, Inc. | http://www.seattleserver.com