For Approval: CUA Office Public License

[Patranun Limudomporn]

Also, short name of CUA Office Public License is "CPL" not "CUA" that
Lawrence understand (however that's not important but I need approval
from OSI ASAP because our product is nearly release with this license).

Regards,
Patranun Limudomporn
Project Leader
CUA Office Project
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:46 AM
To: Danese.Cooper at Sun.COM; 'Patranun Limudomporn'
Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

Hi Danese and Patranun,

Given the possible responses to Danese's questions, I suggest that you
take
part of this discussion off-list.  Not that I think Danese's questions
aren't appropriate ones to ask -- indeed, they are the *most
appropriate*
questions any project should ask itself.  But Patranun's answers to
Danese's
last email *may* incriminate and/or stake out specific potential IP
claims
by certain companies or open source projects.  We should probably keep
those
*specific* potential IP issues to discussions among principals.  Let's
use
this list for general questions and answers.

Of course Patranun can create his own open source licenses by changing
"MPL"
to "CUA" or anything else.  But why do that?  What are the implications
for
his code base?  Do we need yet another incompatible commons of open
source
software that cannot be used for creation of derivative works under any
other licenses?  

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)?  

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?

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danese.Cooper at Sun.COM [mailto:Danese.Cooper at Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:00 AM
> To: Patranun Limudomporn
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> 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 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
> 

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