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

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:51:32AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Often licences have or do not have specifics in how they're being
> applied to software. In our favourite furry Firefox case, there is
> stuff in the package not under the same licence as the rest.

That's just a case of multiple licenses, though; if someone asks "is
this free?", we need to evaluate the licenses applying to the program--
all of them, not just the most obvious ones.  Assuming you're referring
to the trademark issues, in this case to do a reasonable analysis we'd
need to see both the copyright and trademark licenses, and be told they
both apply to the program--but which program they apply to doesn't seem
to change anything, and it doesn't seem like the licenses are "applied"
in any distinguishing way that would make the same pair of licenses free
in one case and non-free in another.

(If there's something other than the trademark license you're referring
to, please jog my memory ...)

> The abstract nature of analysis is probably why "get clarification"
> is frequently the advice to enquirers.

But if a license needs clarification, it needs it regardless of what
it's being applied to.  Once we have clarification, it's effectively
part of the license applied to that work--we have something other than
the original license, and further analysis would consider the
clarification as an addendum to the license.  We don't care about the
program itself; only about the license (and whether it includes

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: