[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:

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,
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing

Reply to: