Re: MPL 1.0?
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 10:30:31AM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 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
My understanding, at least with Mozilla, was that it was dual-licensed as
MPL/GPL because of some problems with the MPL. However, my memory
admittedly is not particularly good on this issue, and
/usr/share/doc/mozilla/copyright did not help to clarify the matter at all.
> 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.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
- MPL 1.0?
- From: John Goerzen <email@example.com>
- Re: MPL 1.0?
- From: "Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au>