Re: Updating the MPL
On 13/03/10 08:18, Paul Wise wrote: Is there the perception that the MPL is still nessecary? I'm wondering what features of the current/future MPL are desired and are not satisfied by the LGPL / GPL dual licensing combination or could be The scope of the copyleft in the MPL (file-level) is different to that in the LGPL (library-level). Historically, the MPL has proved to be a middle-ground where BSDish people and GPLish people have been able to cooperate. So we have no plans to significantly change the copyleft scope, and that means that something like the LGPL would not be a suitable replacement for the MPL. Since that requires Javascript, you'll find some people will prefer to comment here or on the below lists. co-ment looks to be a very nice piece of software though. While we will attempt to read and consider all feedback we come across, we would prefer discussion to happen on the dedicated list. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/hnl2n2$a9...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Updating the MPL
On 13/03/10 21:52, Francesco Poli wrote: However, the license text to be commented is *not* identical to the official text of the MPL version 1.1 [2]. [1] http://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/ [2] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt (as far as I know) The differences (as shown by wdiff) are not purely cosmetic. For instance, Section 8.2(b) in the official version [2] states [...] | any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(b) | and 2.2(b) are revoked [...] while the same Section in the to-be-commented text [1] states [...] | any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(a) | and 2.2(b) are revoked [...] which is *not* the same: please note 2.1(a) instead of 2.1(b)! Goodness me. Well spotted :-) As far as I can see, all other witnesses I can find have the former text, and only the to-be-commented text has the latter. Reading the licence, the former text looks correct (2.1(b) is about patents, but 2.1(a) is not). I will enquire as to what happened, and hopefully get the draft-for-comment corrected. I used wdiff myself (great tool!) and it seems to me that the only potentially significant changes between the two files you name are this one, and the replacement of an NPL by MPL in section 13, which looks to be like a belated correction when the NPL was turned into the MPL during the drafting process. Are there any other differences you see as significant? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b9e115b.4030...@gerv.net
Re: Updating the MPL
On 15/03/10 10:52, Gervase Markham wrote: I will enquire as to what happened, and hopefully get the draft-for-comment corrected. https://mpl.co-ment.com/text/NMccndsidpP/view/?comment_id_key=JeG3XyUGGI7 Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/hnllio$ki...@dough.gmane.org
Re: msntp license
* Charles Plessy: I think that Clause 1 disallows for-profit distribution. Can a redistributor burn a CD and sell it with financial benefit without express written consent of the copyright holders of MSNTP? You can't do that with software released under the Artistic license, either, that's why the situation is a bit complicated. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sk81v30k@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: Updating the MPL
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:52:11 + Gervase Markham wrote: On 13/03/10 21:52, Francesco Poli wrote: However, the license text to be commented is *not* identical to the official text of the MPL version 1.1 [2]. [1] http://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/ [2] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt (as far as I know) The differences (as shown by wdiff) are not purely cosmetic. For instance, Section 8.2(b) in the official version [2] states [...] | any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(b) | and 2.2(b) are revoked [...] while the same Section in the to-be-commented text [1] states [...] | any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(a) | and 2.2(b) are revoked [...] which is *not* the same: please note 2.1(a) instead of 2.1(b)! Goodness me. Well spotted :-) Thanks! :-) As far as I can see, all other witnesses I can find have the former text, and only the to-be-commented text has the latter. Reading the licence, the former text looks correct (2.1(b) is about patents, but 2.1(a) is not). So I must comment as if it were really 2.1(b), like in the official text. Is that correct? I will enquire as to what happened, and hopefully get the draft-for-comment corrected. Thank you. I used wdiff myself (great tool!) and it seems to me that the only potentially significant changes between the two files you name are this one, and the replacement of an NPL by MPL in section 13, which looks to be like a belated correction when the NPL was turned into the MPL during the drafting process. Are there any other differences you see as significant? The rest of the differences indeed seem to be cosmetic/typographical in nature. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpNJUEiGgBcY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: msntp license
[CC Jakub Drnec because I correct one statement I made earlier this year about the MSNTP license] Le Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:44:11PM +0100, Florian Weimer a écrit : * Charles Plessy: I think that Clause 1 disallows for-profit distribution. Can a redistributor burn a CD and sell it with financial benefit without express written consent of the copyright holders of MSNTP? You can't do that with software released under the Artistic license, either, that's why the situation is a bit complicated. I am not sure if you are proposing to keep MSNTP or remove packages with contents redistributed under the Artistic License 1.0 only… In the case of MSNTP, the removal was anyway blessed by the package maintainer for other QA considerations. For the Artistic License in general, well, some other projects like Fedora are removing works distributed under the Artistic Licence version 1.0 only. This would be doable here, but if such a proposition is made and accepted, I strongly recommend to make it in the form of a release goal for the next release. This said, I realised that the Artistic and MSNTP licenses permits to sell Debian CDs for profit: “You may also distribute MSNTP along with any other product for sale, provided that the cost of the bundled package is the same regardless of whether MSNTP is included or not” “you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution”. I was perhaps wrong when I wrote that MSNTP is not free (20100302115733.gb30...@kunpuu.plessy.org), since we tolerate similar clauses for other works. But I if anybody is tempted to adopt and upload the package with the necessary corrections and updates, I recommend to think twice since upstream does not show signs of activity for a long time (at least using the Google search enging). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100315234533.ga25...@kunpuu.plessy.org
