For Approval: CUA Office Public License

[Danese Cooper]

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 the several high quality codebases available and the 
amount of work to start one from scratch), then you may not have the 
right to license the resulting work under an MPL license.  If your 
project is 100% original code, then there can be no problem.  So more 
specifically my question is, "Is your project 100% original code, or are 
you intending to relicense someone's previous work?".

Danese Cooper

Patranun Limudomporn wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> Well first let me answer some questions. "CUA Office" is the name of our
> project. It doesn’t seem that our license use only for office
> productivity and we draw it from MPL 1.1 and replace the name only.
> Nothing seems difference with MPL 1.1 but only the name that difference
> (also the name content with MPL 1.1 but only the name). Another things,
> we also use a LGPL license as a dual (Our purpose is use our own license
> with LGPL if it need).
> 
> Any Questions, please ask me anytime
> 
> Regards,
> Patranun Limudomporn 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danese.Cooper at Sun.COM [mailto:Danese.Cooper at Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:06 AM
> To: Patranun Limudomporn
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> 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 
> project name for Sun) then it is certainly OSI compliant, however be 
> aware that the SPL 1.0 is different from the MPL 1.1 in that it 
> explicitly covers documentation in addition to everything covered by the
> 
> MPL, so which license did you draw from, the SPL or MPL?  Sun posted a 
> diff file to make it easy for potential licensees to assess these 
> differences.
> 
> Also since you name your license "CUA Office" it seems to imply that you
> 
> intend to license code relating perhaps to office productivity.  There 
> are several open source offerings of this type but none is currently 
> licensed under an MPL type license.  Be aware that if you are taking any
> 
> existing open source code as a starting point you will have to comply 
> with the license already covering that code and your new license will 
> not necessarily be compatible.
> 
> Danese Cooper
> 
> Patranun Limudomporn wrote:
> 
>>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 Public
>>License" (with same propose).
>>	I have already attached my license, please review it.
>>
>>	Regards,
>>Patranun Limudomporn
>>   Project Leader
>> CUA Office Project
>>


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3