[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

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

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

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,

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

Re: licensing of xpcom

. 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

Re: GPL questions

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: 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.

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

Re: Using MPL inside BSD

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

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