Update for CUA Office Public License
Mahesh T. Pai
paivakil at yahoo.co.in
Sat Feb 21 05:33:57 UTC 2004
Patranun Limudomporn said on Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:09:15PM +0700,:
> 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.
Well. If you wish to have others contribute to the code base, the
contributing third parties might not like change of license terms.
There are other difficulties with this approach, but others have
already pointed them out.
That apart, I recall a thread on debian-legal that certain clauses
relating to patents in MPL and Nokia Public license are not DFSG free,
but the debian project has no problem at that moment because all
software from these projects are dual-licensed under the GPl and MPL.
The conclusion, if I remember correctly was that debian legal will
have to re-examine a package which is exclusively under the MPL or
In case you wish that your package is not excluded by the largest (ok
- go ahead and flame me) GNU/Linux distro, you may either ask
debian-legal *after* finalising your license and *after* reading
through the http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/.
(Unlike this list, debian-legal list considers licenses only when a
query about whether a s/w under a particular license can be
distributed or packaged by debian is raised by someody within the
debian community. Their answers are confined to simple `yes/no this
license does (not)meet(s) the DFSG'.)
Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,
'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss