Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Foundation Begins Redraft Process For MPL
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.'"
Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.
I guess we'll still be stuck with iceweasle? As a corperation, I can't see them making that concession...
Penguins can be fascists too
A new version of the MPL will automatically relicense their existing code. None of those licenses can do that.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Not everyone wants to give away their code in a way that it can end up reused inside a proprietary closed source project.
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.
(I am not the orginal poster). But inspecting his post, this seems to be fairly easy: [b][em][strong]you text here[/b][/em][/strong]. This is the result: result . Slashdot should really not allow stuff like this.
The beauty of the current situation around software sales and licensing is that you can factor that requirement into your purchasing decisions, while others are free to offer software with greater limitations.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Not everyone wants to give away their code in a way that it can end up reused inside a proprietary closed source project.
I agree. People put their project under a BSD license, and then their work gets used, but they get nothing in return and they start complaining that they don't receive enough donations for their project. (saw this recently in some /. article)
Disclaimer: I'm not against the BSD license (or other licenses that are 'more free' than the (L-)GPL), but IMO people should keep the consequences in mind when they decide to use it for their project. You actually say: here's my code, use it, I expect nothing in return. So don't complain if they do as you say.
I am not really here right now.
And some BSD license folks have encountered _precisely_ that problem. Take a good look at the history of MySQL inside of Sun's commercial licensing model.
There's nothing like publishing "open source" code, having someone modify it, proprietize it for their products, _break it_ for interoperability, and have to deal with their concealed changes as the primary author when their clients come whining to you about how it doesn't work. I've seen this happen with Kerberos, CIFS, Java, and oh dear lord, it's been a problem with device drivers. Open API's aren't enough, either: I've seen it happen with PCL, PDF, and Postscript as well.
Java used to be much worse about it, when the code was much less open, but it still happens.
Giving the freedom to take away others' freedom isn't my cup of tea, personally.
Dilbert RSS feed
What is the objective of the new license? Why don't any existing licences meet that objective? It's not really clear to me why any open source project can't settle for GPL, LGPL or BSD. Thus I ask, what are the objectives that are not met by these.
No.
Fist, the GPL or BSD by themselves can't do anything, I mean, who gives or takes freedoms is the developer.
When the developer licenses his software with the GPL, he's taking away that one specific freedom directly.
When he chooses the BSD, he doesn't take away any freedom, but enables those who use his software to include it in software that takes away ALL the "software freedoms".
Now, what matters is: how important do you consider those freedoms? The GPL proponents believe that proprietary software is morally wrong, so the "freedom" they take is only used to cause harm to others.
Dilbert RSS feed