Dipak Kalra wrote: > Dear Tim, > > We have put quite some effort into the current complete wording, > recognising the practical difficulty in distinguishing "commercial" > from "non-commercial" purposes. I am not sure how much of the total > wording you have seen, and it might well be that we have overlooked > some issues for which I'd certainly be grateful for feedback. I shall > first talk to Tom about what he has sent you so far, since we are both > here in Aarhus for a few days, and then get back to you with some > clarifications. > > (The scope of our present wording is limited to the web site and > downloads, documentary materials and software components that do not > include their source code. Suitable licences for source code is now > the next matter receiving our attention.)
After some discussions with Peter Schloeffel, Dipak Kalra, the consensus seems to be that dual licencing replaces Mozilla effectively, so it looks as if this is the way will we go - dual licence where the OS one is the GPL. Obviously I was a bit out of the loop on this one - sorry for any confusion. Your suggestions about where to include copyright notices are noted (and understood - we just have not updated all the files - it is intended that it will be done by scripts). - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
