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
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
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
* 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
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]
[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
6 matches
Mail list logo