Subject: RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License
From: "Patranun Limudomporn" <nrad6949@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:27:07 +0700

Dear Danese,
Our project is 100% original code. We made it with our own hands and own
ideas, we doesn't think even use another person code that offer us to
use them code. My vision is we need our own open source license only and
we think approval from OSI is very important. We studied about this
issue for long time and we think the best license base is MPL 1.1. Also
"CUA Office" is the name only that we give to our product. It doesn't
mean that our project made only office productivity.

Regards,
Patranun Limudomporn
Project Leader
CUA Office Project

-----Original Message-----
From: Danese.Cooper@Sun.COM [mailto:Danese.Cooper@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:00 AM
To: Patranun Limudomporn
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

Patranum,

My point was that if you are using any of the existing open source 
office productivity projects' code as a starting point (a likely 
strategy, given the several high quality codebases available and the 
amount of work to start one from scratch), then you may not have the 
right to license the resulting work under an MPL license.  If your 
project is 100% original code, then there can be no problem.  So more 
specifically my question is, "Is your project 100% original code, or are

you intending to relicense someone's previous work?".

Danese Cooper

Patranun Limudomporn wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> Well first let me answer some questions. "CUA Office" is the name of
our
> project. It doesn't seem that our license use only for office
> productivity and we draw it from MPL 1.1 and replace the name only.
> Nothing seems difference with MPL 1.1 but only the name that
difference
> (also the name content with MPL 1.1 but only the name). Another
things,
> we also use a LGPL license as a dual (Our purpose is use our own
license
> with LGPL if it need).
> 
> Any Questions, please ask me anytime
> 
> Regards,
> Patranun Limudomporn 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danese.Cooper@Sun.COM [mailto:Danese.Cooper@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:06 AM
> To: Patranun Limudomporn
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License
> 
> Patranum,
> 
> If your new license is indeed identical to MPL 1.1 (except for
replacing
> 
> your project name for Mozilla) or to SPL 1.0 (except for replacing
your 
> project name for Sun) then it is certainly OSI compliant, however be 
> aware that the SPL 1.0 is different from the MPL 1.1 in that it 
> explicitly covers documentation in addition to everything covered by
the
> 
> MPL, so which license did you draw from, the SPL or MPL?  Sun posted a

> diff file to make it easy for potential licensees to assess these 
> differences.
> 
> Also since you name your license "CUA Office" it seems to imply that
you
> 
> intend to license code relating perhaps to office productivity.  There

> are several open source offerings of this type but none is currently 
> licensed under an MPL type license.  Be aware that if you are taking
any
> 
> existing open source code as a starting point you will have to comply 
> with the license already covering that code and your new license will 
> not necessarily be compatible.
> 
> Danese Cooper
> 
> Patranun Limudomporn wrote:
> 
>>To whom it may concern,
>>	I have made new license call "CUA Office Public License". It's
>>base on Mozilla Public License and we change only the name and the
> 
> owner
> 
>>name of this license (like Sun Public License). All of information in
>>this license is the same with "Mozilla Public License" and "Sun Public
>>License" (with same propose).
>>	I have already attached my license, please review it.
>>
>>	Regards,
>>Patranun Limudomporn
>>   Project Leader
>> CUA Office Project
>>


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