David R. Astels wrote:
our legal guy is concerned about using a license that is a slight
tweak to the MPL (such as Sun's... i.e. Netscape - Sun). Any issues
here?
IIRC, many folks do that, btu I don't know, if you are still allowed to
call it MPL then. I think, you may call it a
Gervase Markham wrote:
As a related observation, it seems very odd to me that Netscape chose to
open the source of its entire Communicator code base, and set up a
"Mozilla" project to look after it, but didn't give the project rights to
the cute green Mozilla graphics...
Me too. I really
Bjorn Reese wrote:
The FSF is more concerned about the whole than the individual parts. In
mathematical terms, the FSF wants the union of GPL and another license to
be strictly equal to GPL. The problem the FSF has with MPL, is that there
are additional restrictions on the whole.
Stuart Ballard wrote:
There is no benefit per se, and none were intended -- it is all about
legalism. The code was originally released under MPL. Years later the
contact to many of the contributors had been lost, and it was thus
impossible to ask their permission for a change of license to
Bjorn Reese wrote:
quote
13. MULTIPLE-LICENSED CODE.
Initial Developer may designate portions of the Covered Code as
'Multiple-Licensed'. 'Multiple-Licensed' means that the Initial
Developer permits you to utilize portions of the Covered Code under
Your
Mitchell Baker wrote:
Ben Bucksch wrote:
Bjorn Reese wrote:
quote
13. MULTIPLE-LICENSED CODE.
Initial Developer may designate portions of the Covered Code as
'Multiple-Licensed'. 'Multiple-Licensed' means that the
Initial
Developer permits you to utilize
For some bizarre reasons, we link in libstdc++, which is LGPLed on gcc
Linux. We currently do this dynamically, which is the standard, but
causes major problems during distribution (the user has the have the
exact same version of the lib installed that wer eon the build system)
for other
Ben Bucksch wrote:
For some bizarre reasons, we link in libstdc++, which is LGPLed on gcc
Linux.
FYI: Jim Nance just cited a special exception in the libstdc++ license,
which basically invalidates the GPL terms, if linked using a GNU
compiler. See bug 79681.
SOELL Markus Helmut wrote:
So I imagine this new file may e.g. contain some new functions and I could
add some lines in the covered code, with call to those functions. Is that
right so far?
Right.
Now, maybe my question boils down to what is an API?.
Basically exactly what you described
SOELL Markus Helmut wrote:
Well, basically the definition seems to be at NPL/II.:
It looks like V.3 gives Netscape a
wildecard, they can do with the entire covered code what ever they want.
Mostly. This is intended. Note that
- there is also the MPL, which does not contain this clause.
- the
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
the GPL effectively removes the original
copyright (insofar as original copyright holders have rights to any
derivable product) and gives it away to all and sundry.
The MPL, and a few other licences avoids this imposition.
Does the MPL give the original copyright holder
Ian Hickson wrote:
You mis-read what I wrote. Nokia do not intend their product to be used as
a Flash Renderer, they intend it to be used as a web browser. The point is
that the plugins are not deriative works (they in fact can be created,
compiled and used totally independently of the
Ian Hickson wrote:
In practice, though, our ability to be used in proprietary projects has
not really affected our market share relative to the market share obtained
through the Netscape brand release. Therefore if Netscape switched to the
GPL, we could switch to the GPL without this affecting
It seems like the relicensing is already going on. Did I miss any
announcements or hasn't this been announced on .license?
I find it somewhat irritating that you now change (NPL code) to the dual
license, although my understanding was that you wanted to ask each and
every contributor for
Gervase Markham wrote:
I am asking, because I think that making the MPL compatible might be
the better way for the relicensing.
Please read the FAQ on this issue.
Gerv, as I said, I *did* read the FAQ. Most of the arguments there I
addressed already. The remaining ones are no-brainers:
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
Yes no one will ever see it unless they do a listing output, but that isn't the
point. As always the point is to unambiguously define the licence used.
But to whom define, if only you will ever see it? It will end up with
the current scheme: If you are sued, you claim
Ian Hickson wrote:
must allow _their_ end users to reverse engineer their
program,
Does their peogram include linked libraries?
which at this stage includes the MSVC++ code, which the end user
is not allwed to reverse engineer.
Who says that? In Europe, reverse engineering is allowed for
Did the thread started in .general? Can you give a short summary?
Gervase Markham wrote:
I think Hixie's saying that if you want to combine with GPL code, you
have to change all the notices, as section 3 requires, before you can
do so. This is inconvenient (and may make returning changes
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
Also if I have to licence using the GPL then I may be locked out of future
derivations of my own work.
Unlikely.
If it's a smaller change, that project would have to maintain the change
as a patch, and maintaining patches is hell, as we experienced.
If it is something
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
I know, this I don't understand, i don't see how Galeon and Nautilus can go on, yet
there's a need to further allow GPL licencing.
The only reason why they still exist is that nobody sued them yet (to my
understanding; dunno if they fixed the license in the meantime).
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
I have said that the only way to use the source is to remove the GPL/LGPL language.
But its not the binary that matters, you have to make sure for all uses. This
effectively still means that I'm estopped from contributing back because I can't
licence using the GPL.
Why
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
Mozilla runs on Linux, no user that uses Linux is really going to care about the
source licencing.
They do care, but the MPL is acceptable to most.
Developers that wish to combine code from GPL may be affected but I've never quite
seen the problem like that.
Galeon.
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
Actually, having read the FAQ, even if I hadn't thought that Mozilla, for me, was a
dead project it certainly is now. Forcing developers to licence their own work under
the GPL simply means that developers such as myself can never contribute back because
of the risk of
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
I fail to see how contributions will be made back to the tree by those that insist on
using the GPL.
Not at all.
In which case why bother?
Because Mozilla can't be used by GPL projects otherwise. Note: *used*,
i.e. compiled and distributed. Development should (!= must)
Ian Hickson wrote:
The LGPL would also prevent anyone from building Mozilla using MSVC++,
since the MSVC++ redistributables license disallows reverse engineering,
and the LGPL requires that that be allowed.
There're tons of (L)GPLed projects using MSVC++.
The only case where I can see a
Ian Hickson wrote:
On the other hand, the GPL cannot be merged with any code other than GPL
code (except for OS and compiler libraries).
BTW: That exception might apply to the reverse engineering (in LGPL
license) as well.
Carmi Grushko wrote:
Is it relicensing my application to MPL/GPL (or even MPL/GPL/LGPL),
and that's it ?
Yes, I think so.
And if it is, as an Initial Developer, I may do this anytime I want
to, subject only to my discretion ?
No. If there are other contributors, you have to ask them,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/1350.html
Thanks for your thorough statement to the patent policy of the W3C.
My comments:
Did you notice that some of your (valid) complaints to the RAND patent
license also applies to RF patent licenses, to my
Bjorn Reese wrote:
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
You can charge as you like for your application, but you won't be
charging for the Mozilla component itself.
What part of MPL says that you cannot charge for Mozilla?
You can, but nobody will pay, because it is available for free. Same for
your changes
Hi Mitchell, hi Frank,
is the following addition to the MPL/GPL/LGPL boilerplate OK for new
files in existing Seamonkey modules (Mozilla.org code), reflecting the
fact that I'm not AOL ;-P ?
Quick answer appreciated, since I'd like this code to get into 1.0.
Thanks in advance.
Ben
/*
*
(AGBs) here in Germany.)
What if there's a problem between a French company and me? I am
relatively happy with our laws - why should I chose the U.S. law?
Ben Bucksch
Ben Bucksch wrote:
License is defined above as the MPL, so that term doesn't apply at
all to the [L]GPL.
As for the new license versions, that's a clause that the Linux code
has, too.
Actually, I misworded the clause. I meant
The Initial Developer and no one else has the right to modify
Ralph Mellor wrote:
Aiui, the NPL is not a free license.
It might not be approved as such, but why shouldn't it be Free or
OSI-compliant? It is essentially the MPL plus some license terms that
give Netscape some additional special rights. Those rights are not much
different to the GNU's
Ralph Mellor wrote:
OK. Hmm. So SeaMonkey is free, but incompatible
(in terms of mixing source) with some other free
software. Is that correct?
Well, some other Free Software is incompatible with Mozilla (if under
the MPL), yes. I say it that way around, because it's terms in the GPL
that
Ralf Hauser wrote:
ii) Contributor G applies Modification 1 and creates a
ContributorVersionGPL.C with it, licenses it with GPL and includes it
in her GPL Larger Work.
This is expressedly discouraged by both mozilla.org and Richard Stallman.
1) I guess T does not have the right to just
anthony hill wrote:
Could not Mozilla be virtually based somewhere more amenable to the
open source philosophy.
And the developers? Shall they and their families move, too?
36 matches
Mail list logo
