Update for CUA Office Public License

Patranun Limudomporn nrad6949 at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 21 06:51:26 UTC 2004

Well CUAPL it's base on MPL and I think nothing to chage within my license 
except when the situation is force me to change it.

Patranun Limudomporn
Project Leader
CUA Office Project

From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <paivakil at yahoo.co.in>
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Update for CUA Office Public License
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 11:03:57 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from ns1.crynwr.com ([]) by mc4-f21.hotmail.com with 
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:11:33 -0800
Received: (qmail 26837 invoked by uid 566); 21 Feb 2004 06:10:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 26823 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2004 06:10:55 -0000
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jFsR8HZwK44MW6UQAZHyw0H
Mailing-List: contact license-discuss-help at opensource.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list license-discuss at opensource.org
Message-ID: <20040221053357.GD1126 at nandini.home>
Mail-Followup-To: license-discuss at opensource.org
References: <LAW12-F98ymSx0LDGdy000014c3 at hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <LAW12-F98ymSx0LDGdy000014c3 at hotmail.com>
Return-Path: license-discuss-return-7860-nrad6949=hotmail.com at opensource.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2004 06:11:33.0587 (UTC) 

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
Nokia PL.

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,
   Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,
   Kerala, India.


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

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 

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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list