Danese Cooper scripsit:
> "3.1 Application of License.
> The Source Code version of Original Code may be distributed only under
> the terms of this License or a future version of this License released
> under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with
> every copy of the Sour
Actually John I think you misunderstand the SISSL (see exerpt of section
3.1 below which states that source covered under the SISSL can ONLY be
distributed under the SISSL and as well that additional restrictions may
not be imposed). I notice further that MozPL 1.1 has a similar clause,
so not
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Does everyone agree that derivative works of GPL-licensed software (like
> Open Office, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html) cannot be sublicensed
> under the MPL or CUA or any other license without the approval of the
> copyright owner of the original works (e.g.,
Hi Danese and Patranun,
Given the possible responses to Danese's questions, I suggest that you take
part of this discussion off-list. Not that I think Danese's questions
aren't appropriate ones to ask -- indeed, they are the *most appropriate*
questions any project should ask itself. But Patranu
Patranum,
My point was that if you are using any of the existing open source
office productivity projects' code as a starting point (a likely
strategy, given the several high quality codebases available and the
amount of work to start one from scratch), then you may not have the
right to licen
Hello everyone,
Well first let me answer some questions. "CUA Office" is the name of our
project. It doesnt seem that our license use only for office
productivity and we draw it from MPL 1.1 and replace the name only.
Nothing seems difference with MPL 1.1 but only the name that difference
(also th
6 matches
Mail list logo
