My point was that if you are using any of the existing open source office productivity projects' code as a starting point (a likely strategy, given the several high quality codebases available and the amount of work to start one from scratch), then you may not have the right to license the resulting work under an MPL license. If your project is 100% original code, then there can be no problem. So more specifically my question is, "Is your project 100% original code, or are you intending to relicense someone's previous work?".
Danese Cooper
Patranun Limudomporn wrote:
Hello everyone, Well first let me answer some questions. "CUA Office" is the name of our project. It doesn’t seem that our license use only for office productivity and we draw it from MPL 1.1 and replace the name only. Nothing seems difference with MPL 1.1 but only the name that difference (also the name content with MPL 1.1 but only the name). Another things, we also use a LGPL license as a dual (Our purpose is use our own license with LGPL if it need).
Any Questions, please ask me anytime
Regards,
Patranun Limudomporn
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:06 AM
To: Patranun Limudomporn
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License
Patranum,
If your new license is indeed identical to MPL 1.1 (except for replacing
your project name for Mozilla) or to SPL 1.0 (except for replacing your project name for Sun) then it is certainly OSI compliant, however be aware that the SPL 1.0 is different from the MPL 1.1 in that it explicitly covers documentation in addition to everything covered by the
MPL, so which license did you draw from, the SPL or MPL? Sun posted a diff file to make it easy for potential licensees to assess these differences.
Also since you name your license "CUA Office" it seems to imply that you
intend to license code relating perhaps to office productivity. There are several open source offerings of this type but none is currently licensed under an MPL type license. Be aware that if you are taking any
existing open source code as a starting point you will have to comply with the license already covering that code and your new license will not necessarily be compatible.
Danese Cooper
Patranun Limudomporn wrote:
To whom it may concern, I have made new license call "CUA Office Public License". It's base on Mozilla Public License and we change only the name and the
owner
name of this license (like Sun Public License). All of information in this license is the same with "Mozilla Public License" and "Sun Public License" (with same propose). I have already attached my license, please review it.
Regards, Patranun Limudomporn Project Leader CUA Office Project
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
