[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-license
Subject:    Re: Modifications to Bugzilla internally in an organization
From:       Mitchell Baker <Mitchell () osafoundation ! org>
Date:       2003-04-22 17:36:30
[Download RAW message or body]

Also note that the MPL has a definition of "You" to answer this very 
question.  It's in Section 1.12, and describes the scope of an 
organization in which distribution without souce needing to be 
available.  The definition is wordy, because it's a standard generally 
used by corporate lawyers to determine questions of this nature.  I 
figured it was better to use a standard for defining an organization 
that is already in common use than to try to make up a new one.

Mitchell

Gervase Markham wrote:

> Pål Frogner Hansen wrote:
>
>> Could someone explain to me any rules around modifications to the 
>> Bugzilla
>> sources and deployment within your company? I always stumble across 
>> the word
>> "distribute" in the MPL, and as far as I can judge, deployment within 
>> your
>> own organisation is not distribution.
>
>
> You are right - it isn't.
>
>> Am I right when I say you can do whatever you want with the sources
>> internally, but you have to comply to the rules the moment you make it
>> acessible to others outside the/your company?
>
>
> Not even that; even if your Bugzilla is public access, you don't have 
> to reveal your changes (although of course you are encouraged to). To 
> summarise, you have to give the source of an MPL product to whoever 
> you give the "binaries" to (although binaries doesn't mean much for 
> Bugzilla) and making one available over the Web is not distributing 
> binaries.
>
> Gerv
>
>
>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]