On 22/10/10 12:32, John Vandenberg wrote:
It seems to me that this license is a (perhaps less clear) rewrite of the
3-clause BSD licence - include this notice, don't use my name, no warranty.
Not quite; it requires that the documentation credits them. We do
this down the bottom of about:license.
Yes, indeed so.
Hmm.
I mean: like the JPEG credit-required clause. This is sort of like
invariants in GFDL, and attribution in CC-BY.
It's very unlike invariants in the GFDL.
Open source/free software community consensus is that requesting
attribution of some sort in software form is generally OK. Requesting it
in hardware form (e.g. paper adverts) is not, and saying there are
things other than copyright or credit information which you can't remove
and change is also not.
But yes, it's a bit like attribution in CC-BY.
Does that answer your question? It would help if you could be more specific
about which code we are talking about.
The code is licensed GPL-only, and the copyright holders are not
likely to look favourably on LGPL or MPL.
I'm trying to get my head around what licenses would be acceptable for
Mozilla 'Product Code', in order that I can suggest appropriate
licenses to them.
If their current code is GPL-only, and they are some sort of library,
then they will no doubt have lots of other users who have GPLed
applications. As such, any recommended licence has to be GPL-compatible.
If you are unable to convince them to add LGPL and MPL options to their
licensing (i.e. make it the same as Mozilla), then the two obvious
options are the 3-clause BSD and MIT licences.
I would be happy to enter into discussions with them on our behalf, if
that would help. I've done this several times before.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
