For Approval: CUA Office Public License

[Danese Cooper]

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 not sure why you think its okay to sublicense MozPL covered code 
"under any license".  Inability to recombine Mozilla code with GPL'd 
code was one of the main reasons Mozilla.org community decided to 
tri-license.

"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 Code You distribute. You may not offer or 
impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the 
applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder..."

Also be advised that the complete OO.o codebase is dual-licensed under 
the LGPL and SISSL.  There are no "various parts" under the LGPL.

Danese

John Cowan wrote:
> 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., OpenOffice.org)?  
> 
> 
> Right enough, except that Oo.o has various parts under the LGPL, and
> all of it is dual-licensed under the SISSL.  The SISSL is an MPLish
> license, which provides that any or all of the *unmodified* files of
> Oo.o source code can be reused in derivative works under any license.
> So this isn't a good example for you, but what you say is undoubtedly
> true for pure GPLed code.



> 
> 
>>Does everyone agree that derivative works of MPL- or CUA-licensed software
>>cannot be sublicensed under any other license without the approval of the
>>copyright owners of the original works?
> 
> 
> Definitely not.  The MPL, like the SISSL, provides for reuse of unmodified
> files of source code in derivative works under any license.  It requires
> distribution of source only of those files which have been modified, if any.
> 


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