Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists of the Mozilla Public
License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the Additional
Terms in Exhibit B. The original Mozilla Public License 1.1 can be found at:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:48:29PM +0100, Fathi Boudra wrote:
hi all,
i would like to make an ITP for sugarcrm :
http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/community/sugarcrm-community.html
and i need some advices about licence issue :
http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.php
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists of the Mozilla Public
License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the
Additional
Terms in Exhibit B. The
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it
in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would
be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
stop this The only code under the MPL is Mozilla argument?
It's not an argument--nobody is claiming that a license is free or non-
free based on whether or not
Sorry, hilariously badly misaimed. Back to -legal with this.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
stop this The
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it
in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would
be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says You can't
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:01:27PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The ultimate decision over whether a license is free or not rests with
the FTP masters. They can be overruled by a general resolution. The
presence of code under the MPL in the main section of the archive
suggests (but does
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main,
that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled?
I'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-free.
That does mean I agree that
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main,
that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled?
I'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-free.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:12:31 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
[...]
My impression in this case is: the MPL is non-free,
I agree.
[...]
It seems to take
a lot of squeaky-wheeling to get a non-free license treated as such
these days, and that takes a lot of energy.
Indeed. :-(
In any event, I
11 matches
Mail list logo
