Update for CUA Office Public License

Patranun Limudomporn nrad6949 at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 20 10:09:15 UTC 2004

Well, John just like Sun Public License case. It's same with my case but SPL 
add more information about documentation. Our project prefer to use our own 
license. We've been use LGPL before and then we think it is a time to change 
to our own license now because we have freedom to change it using Open 
Source Definition but if you use some other license, you don't have a 
freedom to change it. That's my reason why I need to make this license.

Patranun Limudomporn
Project Leader
CUA Office Project

From: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
To: Patranun Limudomporn <nrad6949 at hotmail.com>
CC: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Update for CUA Office Public License
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:39:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from ns1.crynwr.com ([]) by mc2-f7.hotmail.com with 
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:47:55 -0800
Received: (qmail 2203 invoked by uid 566); 19 Feb 2004 13:47:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 2191 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2004 13:47:23 -0000
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jHb9isDQPGbH0jcIK6uTycY
Mailing-List: contact license-discuss-help at opensource.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list license-discuss at opensource.org
Message-ID: <20040219133941.GI22874 at ccil.org>
References: <Law12-OE42VsGU7Pw7H00015431 at hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Law12-OE42VsGU7Pw7H00015431 at hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Return-Path: license-discuss-return-7834-nrad6949=hotmail.com at opensource.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2004 13:47:55.0987 (UTC) 

Patranun Limudomporn scripsit:

 > PS. If you want to compare and know what difference between CPL and MPL,
 > just have a look at
 > http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/productinfo_cpl_diff.htm

Thank you for providing this diff.

What it amounts to is that your CPL *is* the MPL 1.1 with the name changed
and the pointers to Netscape changed to point to you.  While this
procedure is permitted under the MPL, I wish to strongly discourage
you from taking this step, for these reasons:

1) The MPL is well understood by many programmers, who will be able
to tell, simply by seeing that your software is licensed under the MPL,
exactly what they can and cannot do with it without having to read
and understand a new and complex license.

2) The MPL has become widely used outside the Mozilla project, just as
the GPL has become widely used outside Project GNU and the BSD license
has become widely used outside BSD.  Thus, using the MPL does not in
any way suggest that you are using Mozilla code or that there is some
connection between your group and the Mozilla project.

3) It's in everyone's best interest if there are fewer, rather than
more, open source licenses.  It has often been difficult to convince
corporate lawyers of this, hence the proliferation at opensource.org;
nevertheless, standard licenses make for simplicity and uniformity,
which encourage the easy use and reuse of open-source software.

A mosquito cried out in his pain,               John Cowan
"A chemist has poisoned my brain!"              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
         The cause of his sorrow                 
         Was para-dichloro-                      jcowan at reutershealth.com
Diphenyltrichloroethane.                                (aka DDT)
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  

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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list