Re: *URGENT* ftpparse licensing issue

Andrew,

Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> 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.)
> 

You'd better remove Prozilla 1.3 from Debian Woody then.  There are no
plans to spend time on further development of the Prozilla 1.3 tree.
Only security fixes are planned.

We looked at the "ftpparse" license issue (in excruciating detail) a few
months back when there was a serious security bug being taken care of.
The level of effort required to replace ftpparse was too great for the
1.3 tree, and it had already been replaced in the 2.0 tree.

The developer's agree that if the only reason to re-write 1.3 was to
support the Debian license, that it wasn't worth the effort.  You're
welcome to use Prozilla 2.0.

Sean

> 
> 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,