What does "new" mean in Section 1.9 (b) of the MPL v 1.1.?

[David Woolley]

Maria Magliano wrote:
> to the novel combination of the two)?  I’m trying to make sure that 
> pre-existing proprietary code is not considered as being “new” under 
> that subsection by being combined with MPL-covered code for the first 
> time. 

It seems to me that your code is new, but not a Modification, because it 
does not contain any of the original code or any Modification of it.

The clauses you quote a defining Modification, not new.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.