On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 10:30:31AM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:45:59 +0000, John Goerzen wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Does anyone know what the consensus on MPL 1.0 is? I'd like to package > > up pilot-mailsync, and it's licensed under that version. > > mozilla-browser, libnss3, libxmltok1, parts of pcmcia-cs and libnspr4 are > some packages already licensed under MPL. The differences between 1.0 and
My understanding, at least with Mozilla, was that it was dual-licensed as MPL/GPL because of some problems with the MPL. However, my memory admittedly is not particularly good on this issue, and /usr/share/doc/mozilla/copyright did not help to clarify the matter at all. > 1.1 is mainly that 1.1 does not purport to grant you a licence to third > parties' patent claims. This shouldn't affect its DFSG status AFAIK. > > > Additionally, is it permissible to link that software with software > > under the no-advert-clause BSD license? > > Yes. Enhydra is an example. > > -- > JEREMY MALCOLM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal: http://www.malcolm.id.au > Providing online networks of Australian lawyers (http://www.ilaw.com.au) > and Linux experts (http://www.linuxconsultants.com.au) for instant help! > Disclaimer: http://www.terminus.net.au/disclaimer.html. GPG key: finger. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
