Re: DOCTYPE util and MPL/APL compatibility

[Shane Curcuru <sh...@yahoo.com>]

I'm pretty sure he meant APL = Apache Public License, it seems to be
such an inviting acronym to be made.  But I'd have to weigh in with
Edwin with my non-lawyer answer: I'm pretty sure that the MPL 1.1 is
*not* useable in Apache projects.  (Sure, you can use Apache projects
and MPL-covered projects yourself without problems, but Apache groups
shouldn't be distributing MPL-covered stuff)

The parts about MPL-covered distributions being available for a certain
amount of time, and especially the viral part of the license are almost
certainly not APL-friendly.  (I was going to suggest that you could
release your stuff under the APL if you wanted to, but I think if you
based it on MPL-covered code, you're stuck with using the MPL for your
distribution too...)

Sounds like a neat tool though!  I've been thinking about ideas like
this; especially where you kind of want to validate but you're OK if
you can' - and adding an auto-finding resolver that attempts to look
for a matching DTD in a number of likely places.  (Just an idea so far)

- Shane

---- Edwin Goei <ed...@sun.com> wrote ----
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> > It's under the Mozilla Public License 1.1, for historical reasons
(it's
> > APL-compatible, right?). 

> What does "APL" stand for?  If you mean the Apache license, then no,
I
do not think MPL is compatible with the Apache license.  MPL is more
restrictive.


=====
<eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@lotus.com"
 BartSays="Nobody reads these anymore."/>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Re: DOCTYPE util and MPL/APL compatibility

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

Shane Curcuru wrote:
> 
> I'm pretty sure he meant APL = Apache Public License, it seems to be
> such an inviting acronym to be made.

No, it's not. see my previous post.

> But I'd have to weigh in with
> Edwin with my non-lawyer answer: I'm pretty sure that the MPL 1.1 is
> *not* useable in Apache projects.  (Sure, you can use Apache projects
> and MPL-covered projects yourself without problems, but Apache groups
> shouldn't be distributing MPL-covered stuff)

The Apache Board and the licensing commitee never officially stated
this.
 
> The parts about MPL-covered distributions being available for a certain
> amount of time, and especially the viral part of the license are almost
> certainly not APL-friendly.

What viral part?

> (I was going to suggest that you could
> release your stuff under the APL if you wanted to, but I think if you
> based it on MPL-covered code, you're stuck with using the MPL for your
> distribution too...)

You can license your patch with whatever license you like, but normally
people choose the easiest way (which is to donate the patch back with
the same license).
 
Anyway, you *can* distribute MPL code with apache projects. It's not
encouradged, but it's not a legal problem.

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org