headers
Gili | 6 Dec 2004 08:31
Favicon

License question

Hi,

    Section 3.7 (larger works) seems to imply that the final product must 
satisfy the Mozilla Public License if it uses any MPL libraries within. Does 
this mean that section 3.2 (availability of source code) magically applies 
to my final product?

    Please clarify.

Thank you,
Gili
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Gervase Markham | 7 Dec 2004 13:29
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: License question

Gili wrote:
>     Section 3.7 (larger works) seems to imply that the final product must 
> satisfy the Mozilla Public License if it uses any MPL libraries within. 

No, it doesn't say that at all. It says that if You combine MPL code 
("Covered Code") with other code and distribute the Larger Work as a 
single product, You must make sure the terms of the MPL are fulfilled 
for the MPLed code ("Covered Code").

Gerv
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexander N. Treyner | 19 Dec 2004 10:27

How firefox/mozilla extensions covered by MPL?

Hello,

I would like to wrote a some firefox extension that I would like to sell 
for a profit. Can I distribute my extension using other license ?

Thanks.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Gervase Markham | 19 Dec 2004 17:08
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: How firefox/mozilla extensions covered by MPL?

Alexander N. Treyner wrote:
> I would like to wrote a some firefox extension that I would like to sell 
> for a profit. Can I distribute my extension using other license ?

I am going to assume your question actually was "can I keep my code 
proprietary?"

Yes, as long as it includes no code copied from MPLed code (or code 
under any other copyleft free software licence).

Gerv
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alexander N. Treyner | 19 Dec 2004 18:28

Re: How firefox/mozilla extensions covered by MPL?

Gervase Markham wrote:
> Alexander N. Treyner wrote:
> 
>> I would like to wrote a some firefox extension that I would like to 
>> sell for a profit. Can I distribute my extension using other license ?
> 
> 
> I am going to assume your question actually was "can I keep my code 
> proprietary?"
> 
> Yes, as long as it includes no code copied from MPLed code (or code 
> under any other copyleft free software licence).
> 
> Gerv

Thanks a lot.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jimmy Cerra | 23 Dec 2004 04:48
Picon
Favicon

Is Sun's new license compatible with the MPL?

Right now, I released a project under the GPL [1], but I'm considering 
relicensing it under a tri-license GPL/LGPL/MPL.  What are the 
advantages of this?

I'm also considering CDDL, Sun's new license [2] which is based on the 
MPL.  Is it compatible with the MPL?  What are the advantages of using 
the MPL verses the CDDL?

--
Jimmy Cerra

[1] http://nemo.dev.java.net

[2] http://www.sun.com/cddl/
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Vidar Braut Haarr | 23 Dec 2004 09:16
Picon

Re: Is Sun's new license compatible with the MPL?

Jimmy Cerra wrote:
> Right now, I released a project under the GPL [1], but I'm considering 
> relicensing it under a tri-license GPL/LGPL/MPL.  What are the 
> advantages of this?

The way Mozilla.org does it, is they release the code under the 
tri-license, but their binaries are released solely under the MPL. This 
lets them use "official artwork" in their binaries, but "prevents" 
others from using the official artwork - some might argue that this is 
allowed with the GPL as well, seeing as they are static, non-linked 
content, but I'm not sure about that.

That was infact quite unrelated to your question, but hey.. :)

In any case: These are the different pros of the licenses:
MPL: Allows people to take the work (and modify it if they want to) and 
sell it without providing the source code.
GPL: The source must always be available.
LGPL: Proprietary software can link against the software without 
opensourcing their application.

That's how I understand it (roughly), atleast, but IANAL.

> I'm also considering CDDL, Sun's new license [2] which is based on the 
> MPL.  Is it compatible with the MPL?  What are the advantages of using 
> the MPL verses the CDDL?

I haven't really read anything about the CDDL.

You should probably talk to Gerv or someone else, who has far more
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Henri Sivonen | 23 Dec 2004 11:27
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Is Sun's new license compatible with the MPL?

In article <41CA7ECF.6020801 <at> firefox.no>,
 Vidar Braut Haarr <vidar <at> firefox.no> wrote:

> MPL: Allows people to take the work (and modify it if they want to) and 
> sell it without providing the source code.

Nope, you have to publish the modifications you make to MPL'ed source 
files and to files that contain code copied from MPL'ed source files.

> LGPL: Proprietary software can link against the software without 
> opensourcing their application.

LGPL is difficult to interpret--especially when applied to languages 
that don't use C linkage. When people think about using LGPL, it would 
usually be better to use MPL/GPL dual license.

--

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen <at> iki.fi
http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Vidar Braut Haarr | 23 Dec 2004 11:42
Picon

Re: Is Sun's new license compatible with the MPL?

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> In article <41CA7ECF.6020801 <at> firefox.no>,
>  Vidar Braut Haarr <vidar <at> firefox.no> wrote:
>>MPL: Allows people to take the work (and modify it if they want to) and 
>>sell it without providing the source code.
>
> Nope, you have to publish the modifications you make to MPL'ed source 
> files and to files that contain code copied from MPL'ed source files.

Ah, I just learned something new, thanks :)
Looking at the FAQ, it verifies what you said:
<http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mpl-faq.html>

It's just worth pointing out (even if perhaps implied by your above 
comment):
"New files containing only your code are not Modifications, and not 
covered by the MPL."

So if you add files to an MPL-distributed source, you do not need to 
provide the source to those files (unless it contains code from MPL'ed 
source, like you implicitly stated above).

>>LGPL: Proprietary software can link against the software without 
>>opensourcing their application.
> 
> LGPL is difficult to interpret--especially when applied to languages 
> that don't use C linkage. When people think about using LGPL, it would 
> usually be better to use MPL/GPL dual license.

I agree. Even the FSF urges people not to use LGPL, IIRC.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Monografia Administração | 24 Dec 2004 00:08
Favicon

? monografia direito ?

                site Monografia express auxilia estudantes e profissionais na
                preparação de suas pesquisas. Temos uma equipe preparada para o
                 desenvolvimento de monografias e projetos de monografia para a
                 conclusão de cursos de graduação, pós-graduação e
                 especialização.

 Também desenvolvemos a formatação de monografias de acordo com as normas da
 ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas) ou conforme as regras de sua
 Faculdade/Universidade.

 Os serviços são desenvolvidos por profissionais altamente capacitados, ou seja,
  pessoas preparadas especialmente para este tipo de serviço e que realizam o
  trabalho de acordo com as normas da ABNT e da Metodologia do Trabalho
  Científico.

  monografia administração direito turismo economia letras pedagogia
  monografias teses  tese.

Sua monografia a partir de 350,00
http://monografiaex.t35.com/index1.html
http://monografiaex.vilabol.uol.com.br
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane