mitchell
Derek Seabury wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Derek Seabury wrote:The MPL, for example, explicitly allows software executables to be
distributed under a license other than the MPL (MPL section 3.6). So it is
perfectly possible to contemplate, say, a binary Mozilla distribution
being distributed under a license prohibiting redistribution of the
binaries.This isn't true. MPL 1.1 section 3.2 states:
Ooops. It is true... Thought I read source. So yes, you could prohibit
people from distributing the
binaries but allow the code to go out. And in turn, anyone who got the code
could compile it and
distribute the binaries freely... so it doesn't seem to be a 'very bad thing.'
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(617)428-4444
May 2 is Global Speech Day! Join the First-Of-Its-Kind Web Event about
speech recognition technology. Hear industry experts. Access the largest
volume of information ever assembled on speech -- its powerful business
benefits, its future and more. Information and registration at
http://www.globalspeechday.com
--
Derek.Seabury@! SpeechWorks.com
(617)428-4444
May 2 is Global Speech Day! Join the First-Of-Its-Kind Web Event about
speech recognition technology. Hear industry experts. Access the largest
volume of information ever assembled on speech -- its powerful business
benefits, its future and more. Information and registration at
http://www.globalspeechday.com
