Re: Update for CUA Office Public License

Patranun Limudomporn Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:10:52 -0800

Well, John just like Sun Public License case. It's same with my case but SPL add more information about documentation. Our project prefer to use our own license. We've been use LGPL before and then we think it is a time to change to our own license now because we have freedom to change it using Open Source Definition but if you use some other license, you don't have a freedom to change it. That's my reason why I need to make this license.

Patranun Limudomporn
Project Leader
CUA Office Project

From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Patranun Limudomporn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Update for CUA Office Public License Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:39:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from ns1.crynwr.com ([192.203.178.14]) by mc2-f7.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:47:55 -0800 Received: (qmail 2203 invoked by uid 566); 19 Feb 2004 13:47:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 2191 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2004 13:47:23 -0000 X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jHb9isDQPGbH0jcIK6uTycY Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2004 13:47:55.0987 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA61D230:01C3F6EE]

Patranun Limudomporn scripsit:

> PS. If you want to compare and know what difference between CPL and MPL,
> just have a look at
> http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/productinfo_cpl_diff.htm

Thank you for providing this diff.

What it amounts to is that your CPL *is* the MPL 1.1 with the name changed
and the pointers to Netscape changed to point to you.  While this
procedure is permitted under the MPL, I wish to strongly discourage
you from taking this step, for these reasons:

1) The MPL is well understood by many programmers, who will be able
to tell, simply by seeing that your software is licensed under the MPL,
exactly what they can and cannot do with it without having to read
and understand a new and complex license.

2) The MPL has become widely used outside the Mozilla project, just as
the GPL has become widely used outside Project GNU and the BSD license
has become widely used outside BSD.  Thus, using the MPL does not in
any way suggest that you are using Mozilla code or that there is some
connection between your group and the Mozilla project.

3) It's in everyone's best interest if there are fewer, rather than
more, open source licenses.  It has often been difficult to convince
corporate lawyers of this, hence the proliferation at opensource.org;
nevertheless, standard licenses make for simplicity and uniformity,
which encourage the easy use and reuse of open-source software.

-- A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan "A chemist has poisoned my brain!" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan The cause of his sorrow http://www.reutershealth.com Was para-dichloro- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diphenyltrichloroethane. (aka DDT) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Update for CUA Office Public License

Reply via email to