"3.1 Application of License.
The Source Code version of Original Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder..."
Also be advised that the complete OO.o codebase is dual-licensed under the LGPL and SISSL. There are no "various parts" under the LGPL.
Danese
John Cowan wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Does everyone agree that derivative works of GPL-licensed software (like
Open Office, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html) cannot be sublicensed
under the MPL or CUA or any other license without the approval of the
copyright owner of the original works (e.g., OpenOffice.org)?
Right enough, except that Oo.o has various parts under the LGPL, and all of it is dual-licensed under the SISSL. The SISSL is an MPLish license, which provides that any or all of the *unmodified* files of Oo.o source code can be reused in derivative works under any license. So this isn't a good example for you, but what you say is undoubtedly true for pure GPLed code.
Does everyone agree that derivative works of MPL- or CUA-licensed software cannot be sublicensed under any other license without the approval of the copyright owners of the original works?
Definitely not. The MPL, like the SISSL, provides for reuse of unmodified files of source code in derivative works under any license. It requires distribution of source only of those files which have been modified, if any.
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
