Re: Commercial use of Netbeans classes
The SPL is the MPL, with Sun as the entity able to make changes. Anything we would say about the MPL would be useful for teh SPL. Sun's has a new license which is similar but different, but that's not the SPL. Mitchell Gervase Markham wrote: The SPL web site says specifically that this is the place to get these queries answered. On http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/license.html, you will find the paragraph: If you have any questions about the license, what it allows and prohibits, we suggest you head over to the Mozilla License forum - the SPL and Mozilla really are close enough to identical that any queries you have are best addressed there: news://news.mozilla.org/netscape.public.mozilla.license; Whoever wrote that is wrong, in that no-one in this group has offered to support or give advice on the SPL. I haven't even read it very closely, and I normally answer most of the questions. It uses most of the same text, but I would have no idea if the differences were relevant to your question or not. As I understand it, Sun went off and made the SPL without consulting mozilla.org. Given that, asking us to support their licence is a bit rich. Gerv ___ mozilla-license mailing list mozilla-license@mozilla.org http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license ___ mozilla-license mailing list mozilla-license@mozilla.org http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
Re: Using MPL inside BSD
Hi The MPL is designed to allow a project to combine code from different licenses. So, if you have a file that has MPL code in it (including new files in which you include some MPL code) those need to be available under the MPL. Once you've done this, you are welcome to combine those files with BSD licensed code (or even closed code if that's what you want to do). As always, this isn't legal advice. You should engage a lawyer if you want such advice. mitchell Mladen Turk wrote: Hi, Few simple question (I hope). I have a BSD licensed project that includes some parts of MPL licensed but modified code. As such, the modifications are publicly available. Does this mean that the rest of my BSD licensed code that relies on the modified MPL licensed code also falls under the MPL license. What I mean: is it possible to mix those two in the same project, having each file it's own license? For eaxample: I wish to make the proprietry software with parts of MPL modified code. Are the publicly available modifications only for modified code enough, or do I need to make the code that uses those modified files also publicly available? The MPL says that my modifications need to be public, and that's fine with me, but I'm not sure what happens with the code that uses those modified files. Thanks, MT. ___ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license ___ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
Re: Using MPL inside BSD
Good question. maybe we can find someone to go through the list here and aggregate the questions into an FAQ which we oculd then review. But even the FAQ won't be legal advice. Legal advice is given by an attorney to a client, in the context of an attorney-client relationship. The attorney-client relationship is governed by a set of professional rules set in place by the state bar associations, and compliance with them is mandatory for attorneys licensed in that jurisdicsion. so legal advice is not something that is rarely provided anonymosuly, or in general, or without an examination of the specific facts of each case. All that said, a license FAQ is long overdue. Mitchell Mladen Turk wrote: Mitchell Baker wrote The MPL is designed to allow a project to combine code from different licenses. So, if you have a file that has MPL code in it (including new files in which you include some MPL code) those need to be available under the MPL. Once you've done this, you are welcome to combine those files with BSD licensed code (or even closed code if that's what you want to do). Thanks, that is clear enough. As always, this isn't legal advice. You should engage a lawyer if you want such advice. I read dozens of similar posts on this group, and found that you are either claming the upper statement, or apologize yourself for the lack of some FAQ on the MPL subject. When do you think that something like FAQ will be available, resolving few of such items, without the need to hire a lawyer for a few simple use-cases? MT. ___ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license ___ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
Re: MPL license
Jacky You'll want to read the license carefully, of course -- that's the ultimate authority. If you make Modificiations (see the definition) then your Modifications must be released under the MPL. If you code is file-based, then the Modifications that must be released are also file-based. In other words, yoy must make any files with Modifications available under the MPL. Once you have done this, you are free to combine MPL files with proprietwary files. See Section 3.7. The best known example of this is probably the Netscape branded browsers. Netscape made its Modifications (and other code on a voluntary basis) available under the MPL. Then it combined that Mozilla code with proprietary code -- instant messaging, some plug-ins, a Java VM and created the Netscape browser. If you read the end user license agreement for the netscape browser carefully, you should see a section saying it's build using MPL code. The MPL also has some notification requirements -- take a look. This is not legal advice -- you need a lawyer who knows your specific setting for that. Mitchell Jacky Cheung wrote: Hi I am using a source code in developing a commercial project, which the source code is in MPL (Mozilla Public License) If I use the source code as library, will the license make my whole project is is MPL as well? And how can I avoid the above problem Jacky ___ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license ___ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
Re: GPL questions
Jozef wrote: I would like to publish software as generally available (freeware). Can I use the Mozilla Public License as is ? Should I or can I modify MPL 1.1 by changing the Mozilla name to my name (my company name) and re-use it as a template ? If not where can I find a template for GPL ? any hints woould be appreciated. Jozef Jozef The simplest thing is to use the MPL as is. If you use it as a template I believe you still need to go through the OSI certification process. Some people object to the MPL because when it was written it could be revised by Netscape Communications Corporation. With the creation of the Mozilla Foundation this has changed; the MPL can now be revised only by the Mozilla Foundation. Hope this helps. Mitchell Baker
Re: licensing of xpcom
Well, if you're distributing this with your executable, you probably don't want to use the GPL side of the tri-license because of its requirements affecting all code in the Program. That means you're in the NPL/MPL world. Your obligaitons under the NPL and MPL are exactly the same. The only difference between the two licenses is that Netscape has some special rights under the NPL that it doesn't have under the MPL. All these special rights are collected in a single place, so neither you nor your lawyer need wade through both the MPL and the NPL. Read either for your obligations. Read the NPL addendum if you care about Netscape's special rights. I'm not giving legal advice, or course. Mitchell Baker Evan wrote: Hi. We are making a value add application to accompany our main products and are looking to utilize the XPCOM framework. My question is not about what requirements I have to fufil since we are going to have a lawyer interpret the license, but with so many licenses(NPL,MPL,and the tri-license) I don't know which license we should be concerned with. We are going to be distributing xpcom.dll, nspr4.dll, plc4.dll and plds4.dll along with our executable. I cannot figure out what license we are dealing with as I'm unable to find out what license those pieces are under. Any insight will be greatly appreciated. evan
Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)
There are two discussions here. One regards the MPL itself, and its use by the mozilla project. The other regards the proposed dual/tri licensing with the LGPL and or GPL. The former is an interesting discussion which we should continue. But it should not stop us from proceeding with the latter. Let's separate these discussions. The project uses the MPL license. We have permission to allow a significant number of files to be used under the L/GPL as well. Let's make this happen so that more people can use the code. A good point has been raised, maybe we need a tri-license. Either way, dual or tri, let's get this done. Mitchell Ian Hickson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Daniel Veditz wrote: In its attempt to prevent combinations with licenses that might subvert the intentions of the GPL it also sometimes prevents combination with licenses compatible in spirit like the MPL as a side effect. The MPL is *not* compatible in spirit with the GPL, because it allows theuse of proprietary code, which is exactly what the GPL is trying to stop.
Re: Question regarding use of MPL code in commercial embedded work
As usual, I agree with Frank's analysis. (I'm not giving legal advice either.) Any changes to MPL files (Modifications) must be made available in source form under the MPL to anyone who receives a binary. And, anyone who receives the Modifications gets them under the terms of the MPL, meaning they can make them public, contribute them to mozilla.org, etc. As Frank points out, this is a big difference from the GPL, and it is intentional. mitchell
Re: minor changes in mpl code
Frank Hecker wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">Lars Guesmar wrote: I want to make some minor changes to a MPL basedprogram without affecting any functionality of the originprogramm. For instance change the name of the log andini-files. Thats all.Is this already a modification, Yes, according to the MPL definition: "'Modifications' means anyaddition to or deletion from the substance or structure of either theOriginal Code or any previous Modifications." Changing the name of a log file referenced in the code is essentially adeletion of the original filename from the code, followed by theaddition of the new filename to the code, and hence is a Modificationaccording to the definition in the license. where I have to distribute thecovered sources? If you are distributing an application whose code is under the MPL thenyou already have an obligation under the license to distribute theoriginal source code for the application (or otherwise make itavailable, e.g., by putting it on a web or FTP site). Changing theprogram means that in addition you have an obligation to distribute (orotherwise make available) the source code for your changes. But whetheryou changed the program or not, you still have a basic obligation tomake source available. THe MPL does allow one to "make the source available" through a pre-existing site such as www.mozilla.org. So most people don't set up ftp servers with the entire source base. mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> However, I thinking of the possibility to rename this applicationas I want. Does this confirm to the MPL ?
Re: LDAP C SDK 5.0 MPL/GPL
One comment re using the BSD as an alternative. It does work well for commercial customers, because essentially they can do whatever they want with BSD code. Including privitize it, as long as they keep the correct notices. One of the things the MPL does is make customers look at the idea of contributing back to the project. (So this does require effort on their part, it is not the easiest way for them.) But in general, I have found that companies can get comfortable with the MPL and be comfortable enough to contribute back. (In large part because there's a clear line that says they can treat non-MPL code however they want.) So not having a BSD style license has encouraged contributions back in 2 ways. First of course, the MPL requires contributions back for MPL Modifications. Second, the process of getting companies comfortable with this requirement encourages them to understand the benefits so that the default response to a BSD license isn't only good, we can treat this as private code. The latter response may be less pronounced now than a few years ago. But I still find it in my discussions with the non-engineering departments of a number of companies. So we forego the easiest way (BSD), but get some benefits in return. Mitchell Michael Hein wrote: Daniel, Yes, I'm floundering around a bit.but learning a lot from all of you guys so that is goodness. I'm actually all set to go as far as changing the C SDK to the MPL/GPL combo; however, thanks to you and others I'm reconsidering. This is a good thing because I would have otherwise just blindly charged ahead without fully understanding. I have a couple of goals as far as the licensing of the SDK go. 1) I would ofcourse like to prevent forks, if possible 2) For our commercial customers, I need a license which they will accept with minimal fuss and which protects their source code rights. In past experience, a BSD style license has always worked well for commercial customers. I want to allow for commercial customers not to have to recontribute code back etc. 3) Allow for as many people to pick up the source with the least amount of hassle. Daniel Veditz wrote: Daniel Veditz wrote: Michael Hein wrote: Bjorn Reese wrote: Instead we opted for a MPL/BSD dual-license. This weakens the copyleft of the project, which is the the opposite effect of what the FSF wants to achieve -- and the irony of it all is, that GPL was the direct cause of this shift. Do you mind posting the dual MPL/BSD you used the more I learn about GPL this seems quite attractive Didn't you start the thread asking about converting the NPL'd LDAK code? Netscape and mozilla.org specifically rejected the BSD when creating the MPL (we were strongly inclined to go with an existing license at the start) and Netscape may still be unwilling to release its code under those terms. In fact, if your motivation is that you're having trouble getting people to agree to change their LDAP contributions to MPL/GPL, picking MPL/BSD is unlikely to help. People who accepted the BSD (which allows taking code for proprietary projects) would be unlikely to object to MPL/GPL unless they are extreme knee-jerk GPL-haters. BSD-like licenses have a do whatever you want attitude. The objections I've seen about MPL/GPL (as it is currently formulated) are that it allows people to fork the code GPL-only without having to share improvements back. Since BSD would allow the same thing except with an even broader range of projects I'm sure you'll get at LEAST the same number of objections. Probably more because at least a GPL fork would still be open source. -Dan Veditz
[Fwd: Re: MPL derivatives]
It's hard to know for sure, because people don't necessary tell us. SCO and Morgan Stanlet released something under this a while ago; more recently eGrail, openh323.org, Interbase, var'aq, last we checked Promothes Project (MySQL clustering) and Mobile Application Link, (I haven't downloaded these recently to see if for some reason the licenses have changed). There are probably others, these are just references to "MPL Sightings" that people have sent to me. If you find others, I'd like to know. I want to set up something that lists all MPL and MPL deriviates we can find, but I haven't gotten to it yet. Mitchell David R. Astels wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">Thanks for pointing out 6.3 in relation to customized licenses. My oversight. Another question: who, other than Sun, is using a modified MPL? Dave
