On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Someone should
Steve Langasek wrote:
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
currently claim.
I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not true. In my copious
spare time, I'm attempting to complete the Mozilla
On 9/10/05, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
currently claim.
I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not true. In my
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Nothing paricularly non-free seeming about that. Heck it means that moving
code between subsideriaries is not distribution, which could be helpful to
some companies.
So I think this clause is a non-issue.
Thanks to all for the explanations. I never
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Would it be out of place to ask what code, exactly, is involved?
Not at all, no. As the licensing state of the tree is determined by a
script, and because I haven't run it in the past few weeks, I can't tell
you exactly offhand. I will attempt to take up the
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:48:54 +0300 Henri Sivonen wrote:
MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free, right?
DFSG-free? The MPL?
I wouldn't say so, based on what I recall... :-(
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying
with for a slightly more (informally) directed approach to license
analysis, that should prove harder to derail with long pointless
tangents and more immune to revisionism by the
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:44:23AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)
Version 1.0
* 1. Definitions.
[...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[control definition]
The intent here is to avoid a party to this license spinning choice
assets off into a corporation for the express purpose of playing shell
games and screwing the licensor in the event of license termination.
If the screwing has
[...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms
of,
this License. For legal entities, You includes any entity
which
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with
On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote:
[...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal
entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the
terms of,
this License. For legal entities, You includes any
entity which
controls, is
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Someone should really file a removal request against Mozilla.
(No, Mozilla is not
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Someone should
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
(No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet)
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:36:30AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
(No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet)
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote:
[...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal
entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the
terms of,
this License.
17 matches
Mail list logo