Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed
On 2004-06-23 19:16:34 +0100 Jim Marhaus <email@example.com>
I think I also referenced Bug #211765, where the license is described
non-free, and a longer discussion is referenced:
OK, I missed that. The SGI F S L B clause seems more clearly non-free,
as it requires notifying SGI. The MPL wording is quite different.
Regarding the Nokia license, the maintainer asking the question
seemed to conclude the license was non-free:
IMO, the maintainer got it slightly wrong, in that the discussion
suggested it required the existance of patents covering the code for
the software to be non-free. That seems likely for swpat-promoter
Would Jim Marhaus or someone who knows him please introduce him to
I'm just a Debian user, been reading debian-legal off and on for a
OK, I've just not read much from you here. Did someone ask you to
summarise the MPL for them?
Thanks for continuing this discussion,
No trouble. Thanks for pointing out the reference I missed,
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing