At 19:27 25/12/2000 -0500, Glenn Alperin wrote:
I've been following the Mozilla project almost since its inception, and I have
followed it excitedly, though admittedly I am not a contributor to the
project.
That said, I did look over the FAQs available to see if my question was
answered
At 11:09 27/12/2000 -0800, Daniel Veditz wrote:
"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
The licensing was split between Netscape Public
Licence and Mozilla Public Licence. The practical difference between them
was solely that Netscape was the original contributor in the case of the
NPL and so
At 23:32 02/01/2001 -0800, Daniel Veditz wrote:
"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
delenda est
Ok, I seem to remember that being the perception, but at this distance
perception is a dull instrument.
Simon
Anyone with a little foresight could see that it would take only one MPL
file c
At 02:23 24/01/2001 +0100, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
There's one for Pueblo on http://www.chaco.com http://www.chaco.com/
which I've wanted to use to incorporate their VRML and MUD/MUSH stuff.
A VRML viewer under the MPL? Cool.
Is there any more info available about features
At 14:14 10/04/2001 +0200, Patrick Spingys wrote:
Hi Mozilla-Team!
Why is it not possible, that you publish your new code and your changes
on Mozilla under the GPL (program) / LGPL (libraries) ?
I know, that at the moment the license is NPL/MPL. But why can not
everybody who have written code
On 13/09/2001 at 09:31 Mitchell Baker wrote:
There are two discussions here. One regards the MPL itself, and its use
by the mozilla project. The other regards the proposed dual/tri licensing
with the LGPL and or GPL. The former is an interesting discussion which
we should continue. But it
On 14/09/2001 at 00:56 Ben Bucksch wrote:
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
the GPL effectively removes the original
copyright (insofar as original copyright holders have rights to any
derivable product) and gives it away to all and sundry.
The MPL, and a few other licences avoids this imposition.
Does
I'm going to try this one more time. A long while ago I suggested a mechanism that
would allow the multiple licencing of source files whilst ensuring the avoidance of
doubt in any particular use.
The problem is that trying to apply the licence choice in each and every file results
in a
On 23/09/2001 at 22:11 Ben Bucksch wrote:
We have heard from several sources that FSF states that the GPL is
incompatible with the MPL, because the MPL has some additional
conditions which the GPL does not allow:
| it has some complex restrictions
| that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 02/10/2001 at 15:26 Ben Bucksch wrote:
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
On 22/09/2001 at 14:14 Simon P. Lucy wrote:
I'm going to try this one more time. A long while ago I suggested a
mechanism that would allow the multiple licencing of source files whilst
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 02/10/2001 at 09:23 Gervase Markham wrote:
And a deafening silence is the result, not even a 'its rubbish go away'.
I don't believe it's necessary, because I (and, as I understand it, the
other staff, and anyone else who has ever implemented a
On 02/10/2001 at 20:41 Ben Bucksch wrote:
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
Yes no one will ever see it unless they do a listing output, but that
isn't the point. As always the point is to unambiguously define the
licence used.
But to whom define, if only you will ever see it? It will end up
are using the NPL/MPL licence and that you are not
using the LGPL or GPL licence, the simplest way to do that is to have on the About
dialog the Mozilla licence without the LGPL/GPL language on it.
Simon
On 21/11/2001 at 14:50 Simon P. Lucy wrote:
On 21/11/2001 at 10:28 Ed Welch wrote:
Hi,
I am
The below is a cool example Ben :-), but it isn't a fair comparison. If you change
the house numbers to be the same, then _that_ is an equivalent example.
Simon
On 21/09/2001 at 09:49 Ben Bucksch wrote:
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
No dual licence where the language of both licences is in the same
On 20/09/2001 at 14:55 Gervase Markham wrote:
You have the wrong end of the stick. It's not that way round, it's the
other way round - developers who want to combine our code with GPLed
apps. We still aren't letting GPLed code into the tree. For one example
of a group who want to use our code
On 20/09/2001 at 15:00 Gervase Markham wrote:
This is not the case. Let's do a thought experiment:
You have a file of code. You make three copies and put one of the
license header from the MPL, LGPL and GPL on each one. Whenever you make
changes to the file, you update all three copies. If
On 20/09/2001 at 21:45 jesus X wrote:
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
However this is not the case, there are not three files but one.
Think of it like Breathsavers mints; every Mozilla file is 3 files in one.
No it isn't, there is only one file. Legally its a single entity. This idea of it
being
On 20/09/2001 at 19:04 Gervase Markham wrote:
license
header from the MPL, LGPL and GPL on each one. Whenever you make
changes to the file, you update all three copies. If someone wants to
use the file, he picks which copy to use. If you are, for example,
Netscape,
However this is not
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 21/09/2001 at 14:34 Ben Bucksch wrote:
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
I have said that the only way to use the source is to remove the GPL/LGPL
language. But its not the binary that matters, you have to make sure for
all uses. This effectively still means
On 22/02/2002 at 10:34 Denise Smithe wrote:
I read the MPL and I am totally confused.
Basically, if I create an application that includes mozilla code
(unmodified) ... can I sell that application?
thanks!
DS
Yes you can sell the application, you can deliver the built application in
any way.
20 matches
Mail list logo
