Good evening,
is the MeepZor Consulting Public Licence (MCPL) a good or a bad license? License is here http://meepzor.com/packages/autoresponder/LICENCE.txt - suggestions?
Greetings, Robert
Robert Scheck wrote:
Good evening,
is the MeepZor Consulting Public Licence (MCPL) a good or a bad license? License is here http://meepzor.com/packages/autoresponder/LICENCE.txt - suggestions?
I've asked the FSF opinion on this, will report back when I hear something. Added this to the Unknown license list.
Is there a package in the review queue that uses this license?
~spot
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I've asked the FSF opinion on this, will report back when I hear something. Added this to the Unknown license list.
Thank you.
Is there a package in the review queue that uses this license?
No, not yet. I'm currently packaging it for work, because I need it there - independent, whether the license is FSF approved or not ;-) Otherwise the package will end in Livna, where it shouldn't have problems anyway, looks like a normal free license to me. Once I know, it's a good license, I'll put the package into the review queue...
Greetings, Robert
On 01/05/2008 Robert Scheck wrote:
looks like a normal free license to me.
It looks that way to me, but the wording is unique in a few parts, and I'm not sure it if is GPL compatible or not.
If I had to guess, I would say Free and GPLv2/v3 Compatible, but I'd rather let the FSF pass judgement. :)
~spot
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 20:44 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 01/05/2008 Robert Scheck wrote:
looks like a normal free license to me.
It looks that way to me, but the wording is unique in a few parts, and I'm not sure it if is GPL compatible or not.
If I had to guess, I would say Free and GPLv2/v3 Compatible, but I'd rather let the FSF pass judgement. :)
This one came back as non-free. I spoke to the author of the license, and he's moved the code that used it to Apache 2.0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/clarke
~spot
-
Robert Scheck -
Tom Callaway