www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: MPL 2.0
Date Sat, 11 Aug 2012 02:52:50 GMT
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm guessing it is simply that nobody has updated the web page. I gotta
> believe MPL 2.0 would be just fine.

I certainly wouldn't object to MPL 2.0 being treated the same way we
treat MPL 1.1.

> Cheers,
> -g

- Sam Ruby

> On Aug 10, 2012 5:11 PM, "Richard Fontana" <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I just noticed that at <http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html> in
>> the list of "licenses may be included in binary form within an Apache
>> product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled" there is a list
>> that includes MPL 1.0 and MPL 1.1 but not MPL 2.0 [1]. What is ASF's
>> policy on MPL 2.0? (Perhaps the issue just hasn't come up yet?)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> [1] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message