Subject: Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:24:56 -0500

Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:

> Does everyone agree that derivative works of GPL-licensed software (like
> Open Office, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html) cannot be sublicensed
> under the MPL or CUA or any other license without the approval of the
> copyright owner of the original works (e.g., OpenOffice.org)?  

Right enough, except that Oo.o has various parts under the LGPL, and
all of it is dual-licensed under the SISSL.  The SISSL is an MPLish
license, which provides that any or all of the *unmodified* files of
Oo.o source code can be reused in derivative works under any license.
So this isn't a good example for you, but what you say is undoubtedly
true for pure GPLed code.

> Does everyone agree that derivative works of MPL- or CUA-licensed software
> cannot be sublicensed under any other license without the approval of the
> copyright owners of the original works?

Definitely not.  The MPL, like the SISSL, provides for reuse of unmodified
files of source code in derivative works under any license.  It requires
distribution of source only of those files which have been modified, if any.

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com
[P]olice in many lands are now complaining that local arrestees are insisting
on having their Miranda rights read to them, just like perps in American TV
cop shows.  When it's explained to them that there are in a different country,
where those rights do not exist, they become outraged.  --Neal Stephenson
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3