Subject: Re: Create new license or use MPL?
From: "Rod Dixon" <rod@cyberspaces.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:45:32 -0400

Despite the length of your question, it is fairly vague. You may want to
post the draft of the license with an explanation.

Rod

Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
rod@cyberspaces.org
http://www.cyberspaces.org/dixon/
My papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) are available
through the following url: http://papers.ssrn.com/author=240132

> Hi people,
>
> Following the discussion about modified licenses and
> the desire to keep the number of licenses as little
> as possible, I have the following question.
>
> I'm working on a website project. My work involves
> Java, HTML, and plain content. I would like a license
> that covers all 3 types of work, or "material". The
> spirit of the license should be like the MPL, which I
> think is a very nice license. But the MPL speaks of
> code in particular as "material", not of any kind of
> material. So I'm not sure whether I could use the MPL
> for my work. Or can I? Will it cover all of my work,
> including the plain content? Currently, I have written
> a new license, which is essentially a copy of the MPL,
> in which I replaced all such terms as "Covered Code"
> by "Covered Material". Is this better or does this
> nothing but increase the nr of licenses out there?
>
> If it's the latter, then I'm dumping my license.
>
> regards,
> Henry Pijffers
>
> --
> Kopflos lauf ich durch die Nacht alleine
> Unterwegs ich rede mit mir Selbst
> Und verstehe kein Wort
> Von dem was ich mir erzähl
>
>
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3