Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure he meant APL = Apache Public License, it seems to be
> such an inviting acronym to be made.
No, it's not. see my previous post.
> But I'd have to weigh in with
> Edwin with my non-lawyer answer: I'm pretty sure that the MPL 1.1 is
> *not* useable in Apache projects. (Sure, you can use Apache projects
> and MPL-covered projects yourself without problems, but Apache groups
> shouldn't be distributing MPL-covered stuff)
The Apache Board and the licensing commitee never officially stated
this.
> The parts about MPL-covered distributions being available for a certain
> amount of time, and especially the viral part of the license are almost
> certainly not APL-friendly.
What viral part?
> (I was going to suggest that you could
> release your stuff under the APL if you wanted to, but I think if you
> based it on MPL-covered code, you're stuck with using the MPL for your
> distribution too...)
You can license your patch with whatever license you like, but normally
people choose the easiest way (which is to donate the patch back with
the same license).
Anyway, you *can* distribute MPL code with apache projects. It's not
encouradged, but it's not a legal problem.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
