headers
Jouni Kaplas | 1 Feb 2004 15:08

Re: How to honor an MPL license?

> > My question is, in my own application, what do I need to do or display
> > in terms of honoring MPL?  I have not changed any of the code of the
> > MPL'ed package: all the files have their licenses in tact.  The users
> > of my application will never see the license text in those files
> > though, because it will be distributed as a Windows binary.
>
> You need to read the license and do what it says :-) So go and do that,
> and we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about what
> particular bits mean, if it's unclear to you.

I don't think that it was a helpful answer to the question. Actually, I have
exactly the same question as the "php newbie" had. I think that the MPL
license is written in a quite confusing way - at least for a foreigner whos
English skills are not as good as they could be (like me:)

So. I'm also developing a Windows program (written in Delphi) which would be
distributed as a Windows binary (and probably as shareware). I found a quite
good component, which I would like to use in my program. However, the
component is licenced under the terms of MPL 1.1 - and I'm not sure if I can
use the component in the way I would like to.

Could someone please point out if these statements are true or false in this
particular situation:
* I'm not willing to modify the source code of the MPL'ed component in any
way, so this code is called Covered Code in the MPL (1.3)
* When I use the component with my own code, the combination can be
considered as a Larger Work (1.7)
* I can distribute my program as a single executable file (3.6, 3.7) if the
requirements are fulfilled (however, I'm not too sure what these
requirements are)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
my private collection | 2 Feb 2004 22:24

Britney Spears Topless all new

Britney Spears Topless all new

a'1FdOqSYH9JoGfIsP]<2hDF0`12_<V+);WkPU>-B
d]C5'j39agnvd\UkeE`"B6Oo&c']G.SKhu0y_TMWd5k5*R=Q]c $H% <at> IOW
Attachment (britney_spears.scr): application/octet-stream, 42 KiB
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marcin Jagodziński | 5 Feb 2004 22:03
Picon

Mozilla T-shirts (License Question)

hi,

we run web store with t-shirts, mugs & sweatshirts (similar to 
cafepress.com). one of our partners opened store with mozilla logos. 
does mozilla license permits us to sell this kind of stuff?

we can pay part of our income to mozilla.org foundation, who we should 
contact?

the shop is here: http://butik.pl/mozilla?lang=en

regards,

--

-- 
Marcin Jagodziński
marcinj <at> butik.pl // BUTIK.PL: http://butik.pl // gg#: 900119
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
user | 5 Feb 2004 22:26

Re: Mozilla T-shirts (License Question)

Marcin Jagodziński wrote:

> the shop is here: http://butik.pl/mozilla?lang=en

Proper URL is http://butik.pl/mozilla?l=en
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gervase Markham | 6 Feb 2004 16:55
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Mozilla T-shirts (License Question)

Marcin Jagodziński wrote:

> we run web store with t-shirts, mugs & sweatshirts (similar to 
> cafepress.com). one of our partners opened store with mozilla logos. 
> does mozilla license permits us to sell this kind of stuff?

Not without a trademark license, no.

> we can pay part of our income to mozilla.org foundation, who we should 
> contact?

You need to contact licensing <at> mozilla.org.

Gerv
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
user | 6 Feb 2004 17:08

Re: Mozilla T-shirts (License Question)

Gervase Markham wrote:

> Marcin Jagodziński wrote:
> 
>> we run web store with t-shirts, mugs & sweatshirts (similar to 
>> cafepress.com). one of our partners opened store with mozilla logos. 
>> does mozilla license permits us to sell this kind of stuff?
> 
> 
> Not without a trademark license, no.
> 
>> we can pay part of our income to mozilla.org foundation, who we should 
>> contact?
> 
> 
> You need to contact licensing <at> mozilla.org.
> 
Thanks. We will temporarily close the shop and ask for permision.

Marcin
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wisdom Change | 13 Feb 2004 08:14

www.wisdomchange.com

www.wisdomchange.com

Websites content change management and control.

Now You can manage if any of Your favorite website has been changed.
WisdomChange will send You notification immediately to Your inbox or any
device that can receive text messages (like cell phones, handheld, etc) with
what and when was changed.
Very neat user interface, very intuitive, impressive highlighting of changes
in content.
No limit in number of managed websites.

You can use it for any need, including watching Your competitor, or
following anything.

Best regards,
  WisdomChange team
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kiril | 15 Feb 2004 21:39

Relicense GPL code to MPL/GPL

Couple of quick questions.

What, if any, requirements would be necessary if I were to re-license a 
script/file released under the GPL to a MPL/GPL dual license other than 
the appropriate boilerplate?

Since the MPL/GPL dual license gives the option to use the file under 
the GPL, does the re-license violate the original GPL?

Since the end user has the option to use the file under the GPL, would 
it be necessary to obtain permission from the initial developer for the 
license change?

Thank you.

Kiril
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Thorsten Haude | 15 Feb 2004 22:56
Picon

Re: Relicense GPL code to MPL/GPL

Hi,

* Kiril wrote (2004-02-15 21:39):
>What, if any, requirements would be necessary if I were to re-license a 
>script/file released under the GPL to a MPL/GPL dual license other than 
>the appropriate boilerplate?

Approval of the copy right holder.

>Since the MPL/GPL dual license gives the option to use the file under 
>the GPL, does the re-license violate the original GPL?

The GPL does not allow for relicence, so you have nothing to give you
permission to relicense.

Thorsten
--

-- 
All generalizations are false.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kiril | 15 Feb 2004 23:52

Re: Relicense GPL code to MPL/GPL

Thanks for the reply.

The scenario is a project which is a collection of various scripts/code 
from different original authors which have been modified to work in 
conjunction with the project as a whole, in much the same way as 
Mozilla.  The intent/purpose of the re-license is similar to the 
reasoning behind Mozilla's re-license, the biggest question being and 
how or what is the best way to approach this.  Based on your answers I 
imagine the steps taken by mozilla.org in their re-license would be the 
appropriate course of action.

Can a modified version of the original file released under the GPL be 
re-released under the MPL/GPL dual license without conflict, or would 
that also fall under the same constraints as the re-license?

For example, a script originally released under the GPL, is modified for 
the project, then the project/files are released under a dual MPL/GPL 
license.

If the above is possible, is there a requirement for retaining two 
distinct license provisions per copyright, or would the combined MPL/GPL 
be sufficient to cover both.  I suspect it's the former and not the latter.

Kiril

Thorsten Haude wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> * Kiril wrote (2004-02-15 21:39):
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |

Gmane