On 02 Apr 2006 08:15:50 -0400 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
..deleted > This is not the only issue with the MPL -- as Mike Hommey recently > reminded -legal, there are others[1]. GPL section 3(b) is considered > non-free in itself, but it is one of several options; a distributor > may satisfy the GPL by making the work's source code available at the > same time and in the same place as the object code. > > [1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html I've just read the email reference above. IANAL, but I disagree with the points made. I say this has someone who has been distrbuting software under the MPL for nearly 7 years :) The problems with 2.1 are avoided by choosing not to distribute any MPL work that has patent encumbrances. Note that any such encumbrances must be announced (see 3.4). The MPL has the same requirement as the GPL regard distribution, i.e. distrbution of source on the same same media fulfills the license terms. For electronic distrbution, the terms are met by the historical nature of the SVN repository. Compare this to the GPL which requires source code to be available on demand for three years after release. 3.4 is handled by the same means as above. In the case of submarine patents, I don't see why this is any more a problem for MPL works than any other work. The specification of a venue only applies if one party is in the US. In any case, anyone can be sued by anyone else in any venue. You could be just as easily sued by someone in London as in Santa Clara - why does this clause add a specific burden? Craig ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Southeren Post Increment VoIP Consulting and Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.postincrement.com.au Phone: +61 243654666 ICQ: #86852844 Fax: +61 243673140 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +61 417231046 "It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile. Be yourself, no matter what they say." Sting
