Re: MPL license

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: MPL license
From: Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:13:56 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 20060402191354.GA10865@feynman.home>
Mail-followup-to: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20060402101905.GA4594@glandium.org>
References: <87veu19thw.fsf@vorlon.ganneff.de> <87y7yuoj0z.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20060328.070450.115911906.walter@geodynamics.org> <e0del3$odf$1@wonderland.linux.it> <442E0029.3010401@derobert.net> <[🔎] 20060402101905.GA4594@glandium.org>

On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 12:19:05PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> 
> Section 3.2 is not the only problematic thing with the MPL license.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html

Agreed fully. MPL has more than one problem.

Reply to:

References:
- Re: MPL license
  - From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

Prev by Date: Re: MPL and Source Code
Next by Date: Re: MPL and Source Code
Previous by thread: Re: MPL license
Next by thread: MPL and Source Code
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread