Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed
On 2004-06-23 19:16:34 +0100 Jim Marhaus <marhaus@sdf.lonestar.org>
wrote:
I think I also referenced Bug #211765, where the license is described
as
non-free, and a longer discussion is referenced:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2003/09/msg00410.html
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
Nokia.
Would Jim Marhaus or someone who knows him please introduce him to
us?
I'm just a Debian user, been reading debian-legal off and on for a
few years.
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,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Reply to: