[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the general case, if the documentation is to be freely
redistributable to a large license, a license which allows distribution
under terms at least as liberal as the software license should be
sufficient.
Indeed, but that is a general point not specific to
Hey folks,
A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license to
avoid the proliferation of yet more open source licenses, how do you
deal with the fact that many of the open source licenses have
specific language that doesn't make sense if used by any product
other than what
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 01:43:59PM -0500, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the general case, if the documentation is to be freely
redistributable to a large license, a license which allows distribution
under terms at least as liberal as the software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it is specific to documentation, so long as the documentation
doesn't incorporate code from the project.
My point was that it is convenient for documentation and software to
be under the same license, so that the same set of persons can make
revisions to both in
The MPL is due for a revision before long. I'd like to make the revised
version as neutral as possible for just this reason.
mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:25:56PM -0800, Adam C. Engst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hey folks,
A quick question. If you want to
We're also trying to figure out a documentation license for the Mozilla
Project. One reason we've talked about using the same license for
documentation and code is that it can be difficult to separate the two.
For example, the Help documentation is included in electronic format as
part of
On Tuesday 28 November 2000 02:26 pm, John Cowan wrote:
If the software were GPL and the doco BSD, then if anyone rewrote the
doco for greater clarity or some such, then he would be able to make
the improved version proprietary and prevent it from being distributed
with current or future
begin John Cowan quotation:
The term "relicense" should be avoided, as it leads to wifty thinking.
No one but the copyright holder can "relicense" anything, in the
sense of changing the license.
You can create a *derivative* work containing BSD parts and GPL parts,
and license the whole
At 1:01 PM -0800 11/28/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license to
avoid the proliferation of yet more open source licenses, how do you
deal with the fact that many of the open source licenses have
specific language that doesn't make
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 02:36:53PM -0800, Mitchell Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:25:56PM -0800, Adam C. Engst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hey folks,
A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license to
avoid the
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 05:26:20PM -0500, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software and its accompanying documentation are generally considered two
seperate works. There is no licensing compatibility requirement between
the docs and the code. Even where
Karsten Self wrote:
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 05:26:20PM -0500, John Cowan
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The way I read 3(c), the GNU GPL refers to the program, but doesn't
preclude
its inclusion into a larger, ***nonprogram*** work:
[...]
I think section 2 has a
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
At work, I've tried to explain the matter by saying it's best to think
of a composite work as not _having_ a licence, per se: The individual
modules bear licences. The resulting composite, then, either is or is not
legally distributable, depending on
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 02:43:13PM -0800, Mitchell Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Software and its accompanying documentation are generally considered two
seperate works. There is no licensing compatibility requirement between
the
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
I think section 2 has a lot to say about this. Its wording
makes no - and allows no - distinction between programs and
non-programs. However you may aggregate works together.
So even though documentation and your program are distributed
together,
15 matches
Mail list logo
