[CC Jakub Drnec because I correct one statement I made earlier this
year about the MSNTP license]
Le Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:44:11PM +0100, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> * Charles Plessy:
> > I think that Clause 1 disallows for-profit distribution. Can a redistributor
> > burn a CD and sell it with f
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:52:11 + Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 13/03/10 21:52, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > However, the license text to be commented is *not* identical to the
> > official text of the MPL version 1.1 [2].
> >
> > [1] http://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/
> > [2] http://www.mozi
* Charles Plessy:
> I think that Clause 1 disallows for-profit distribution. Can a redistributor
> burn a CD and sell it with financial benefit without express written consent
> of
> the copyright holders of MSNTP?
You can't do that with software released under the Artistic license,
either, that
On 15/03/10 10:52, Gervase Markham wrote:
I will enquire as to what happened, and hopefully get the
draft-for-comment corrected.
https://mpl.co-ment.com/text/NMccndsidpP/view/?comment_id_key=JeG3XyUGGI7
Gerv
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On 13/03/10 21:52, Francesco Poli wrote:
However, the license text to be commented is *not* identical to the
official text of the MPL version 1.1 [2].
[1] http://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/
[2] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt (as far as I know)
The differences (as shown by wdif
On 13/03/10 08:18, Paul Wise wrote:
Is there the perception that the MPL is still nessecary? I'm wondering
what features of the current/future MPL are desired and are not
satisfied by the LGPL / GPL dual licensing combination or could be
The scope of the copyleft in the MPL (file-level) is diff
6 matches
Mail list logo
