Re: MPL 1.0?

["Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au>]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:45:59 +0000, John Goerzen wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Does anyone know what the consensus on MPL 1.0 is?  I'd like to package
> up pilot-mailsync, and it's licensed under that version.

mozilla-browser, libnss3, libxmltok1, parts of pcmcia-cs and libnspr4 are
some packages already licensed under MPL.  The differences between 1.0 and
1.1 is mainly that 1.1 does not purport to grant you a licence to third
parties' patent claims.  This shouldn't affect its DFSG status AFAIK.

> Additionally, is it permissible to link that software with software
> under the no-advert-clause BSD license?

Yes.  Enhydra is an example.

-- 
JEREMY MALCOLM <Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au> Personal: http://www.malcolm.id.au
Providing online networks of Australian lawyers (http://www.ilaw.com.au)
and Linux experts (http://www.linuxconsultants.com.au) for instant help!
Disclaimer: http://www.terminus.net.au/disclaimer.html. GPG key: finger.