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 ([192.203.178.14]) 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)
FILETIME=[8E06AA30:01C3F841]
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.
http://paivakil.port5.com
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list