Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Foundation Begins Redraft Process For MPL

Posted by timothy on from the treading-lightly dept.

Barence writes "Mozilla has announced plans to redraft the open-source license underpinning projects such as Firefox. The Mozilla Public License 1.1 has been used to distribute numerous projects including Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenSolaris and Flex for over a decade. In the first phase of this process, Mozilla will release an alpha draft based on feedback already received. This will be followed by 'commentary, discussion, and further drafting, followed by beta and release candidate drafts.' Mozilla intends to 'seriously investigate' whether it can make the MPL compatible with the Apache license, in an effort to 'help projects using the MPL become more flexible about using Apache-licensed code.'"

8 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. OpenSolaris is not MPL by jonwil · · Score: 3, Informative

    Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.

    1. Re:OpenSolaris is not MPL by BhaKi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.

      Wrong. Take a look at the first line on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    2. Re:OpenSolaris is not MPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.

      Wrong. Take a look at the first line on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License

      Wrong. Read the text you're linking to:

      Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) is a free software license, produced by Sun Microsystems, based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL), version 1.1.

      Yes it's based on the MPL, but it's not the MPL.

  2. Re:Iceweasle by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Informative

    I guess you don't use it, because it was re-branded as icecat three years ago.

  3. Re:Iceweasle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Debian it's still called IceWeasel, that is the reason the GNU version changed its name.

  4. Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just BSD everything. All other licenses are nothing but a headache.

    Not everyone wants to give away their code in a way that it can end up reused inside a proprietary closed source project.

  5. Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. by maxume · · Score: 5, Informative

    AC didn't quote this part:

    6.2. Effect of New Versions. This clause guarantees that mozilla.org will never be able to take away rights that you have under the version of the license under which your code or modifications were created.

    Once Covered Code has been published under a particular version of the License, You may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Covered Code under the terms of any subsequent version of the License published by Netscape [The Mozilla Foundation]. No one other than Netscape [The Mozilla Foundation] has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.

    It is going to take a pretty fantastic interpretation of that clause to argue that it doesn't allow use of code under later versions of the license.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  6. Re:What is the objective? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Informative

    That was my question too... Until I read the rest of TFS!

    Mozilla intends to 'seriously investigate' whether it can make the MPL compatible with the Apache license, in an effort to 'help projects using the MPL become more flexible about using Apache-licensed code.'

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.