Re: Update for CUA Office Public License

2004-02-20 Thread Patranun Limudomporn
Well CUAPL it's base on MPL and I think nothing to chage within my license except when the situation is force me to change it. Patranun Limudomporn Project Leader CUA Office Project From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Update for CUA Office Public License D

Re: Update for CUA Office Public License

2004-02-20 Thread Mahesh T. Pai
Patranun Limudomporn said on Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:09:15PM +0700,: > 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 i

Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration

2004-02-20 Thread Roy T. Fielding
Are you saying that your license allows GPL-forking? No, I am saying that the Apache License says: You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifica

Re: The regrettable use of "all" in Section 7 of the GPL

2004-02-20 Thread Ruth A. Kramer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But the GPL does say: if one person cannot receive and redistribute, no one > can, at least within a single country. I didn't see anyone else respond to this -- did I miss something? Is this your reference? (from Version 2, June 1991) 8. If the distribution and/or us

Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration

2004-02-20 Thread John Cowan
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > Are you saying that your license allows GPL-forking? I think that > it does allow things like distribution of GPL'd patches... but the > resulting/originating derivative works would fall under multiple > licenses -- the GPL for modifications and the ASL for all th

Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration

2004-02-20 Thread Alexander Terekhov
"Roy T. Fielding" wrote: [...] > A derivative work that is distributed under only the GPL... Are you saying that your license allows GPL-forking? I think that it does allow things like distribution of GPL'd patches... but the resulting/originating derivative works would fall under multiple lic

Chage a short name of CUA Office Public License

2004-02-20 Thread Patranun Limudomporn
To everyone, Someone e-mail me that the short name of CUA Office Public License ("CPL") it'll make a confusion, so to avoid this confusion. I need to rename it form "CPL" => "CUAPL" and I'd like to thank you who e-mail me about this issue. Thank you very much. Regards, Patranun Limudomporn Proj

Update for CUAPL

2004-02-20 Thread Patranun Limudomporn
I've already change the short name of CUA Office Public License, so I've chage an information website too. This is a new URL one. http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/productinfo_cuapl.htm http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/productinfo_cuapl_diff.htm http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/CUAPL.htm Regards,

Re: Update for CUA Office Public License

2004-02-20 Thread Patranun Limudomporn
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

Re: Inform for CUA Office Public License

2004-02-20 Thread Patranun Limudomporn
So, I'll Change it into new name of it. :) Patranun Limudomporn From: David Shofi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Patranun Limudomporn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inform for CUA Office Public License Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:02:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.18