What does "new" mean in Section 1.9 (b) of the MPL v 1.1.?
forums at david-woolley.me.uk
Fri Apr 2 19:59:01 UTC 2010
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
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.
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.
More information about the License-discuss