For Approval: CUA Office Public License 1.0.1

To whom it may concerns, This is the CUA Office Public License 1.0.1. I've change something especially in section number 11. Miscellaneous, change enforced law from California Law's to Thailand's law. Regards, Patranun Limudomporn

RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:00 AM To: Patranun Limudomporn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License Patranum, My point was that if you are using any of the existing open source office productivity projects' code

RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

- From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Patranun Limudomporn' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License Hi Danese and Patranun, Given the possible responses to Danese's questions, I

RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

Patranun Limudomporn wrote: [...] Also, short name of CUA Office Public License is CPL not CUA So go ahead with the CPL (the real one). ;-) regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:06 AM To: Patranun Limudomporn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License Patranum, If your new license is indeed identical to MPL 1.1 (except for replacing your project name for Mozilla) or to SPL 1.0 (except for replacing

Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:06 AM To: Patranun Limudomporn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License Patranum, If your new license is indeed identical to MPL 1.1 (except for replacing your project name for Mozilla) or to SPL 1.0 (except for replacing your

RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

, December 21, 2003 9:00 AM To: Patranun Limudomporn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License Patranum, My point was that if you are using any of the existing open source office productivity projects' code as a starting point (a likely strategy, given

Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: Does everyone agree that derivative works of GPL-licensed software (like Open Office, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html) cannot be sublicensed under the MPL or CUA or any other license without the approval of the copyright owner of the original works (e.g.,

Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

Actually John I think you misunderstand the SISSL (see exerpt of section 3.1 below which states that source covered under the SISSL can ONLY be distributed under the SISSL and as well that additional restrictions may not be imposed). I notice further that MozPL 1.1 has a similar clause, so

Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

Danese Cooper scripsit: 3.1 Application of License. The Source Code version of Original Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source

For Approval: CUA Office Public License

To whom it may concern, I have made new license call CUA Office Public License. It's base on Mozilla Public License and we change only the name and the owner name of this license (like Sun Public License). All of information in this license is the same with Mozilla Public License and Sun

Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

Patranun Limudomporn said on Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 02:19:57PM +0700,: (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2) separate from the Original Code; or 3) for infringements caused by: i) the