Procedure for using an approved license

[Mitchell Baker]

I had never really thought of the Open Software License as a practical 
alternative for the MPL.  I'll certainly reread it carefully with that 
in mind.

The MPL's file based system was used so that people working with the 
code, particularly programmers, could automatically and accurately 
understand the scope of the license.  Programmers know a file when they 
see one.  They don't necessarily know a derivative work when they see 
one.  And neither do lawyers.  Last time I did serious research into 
this topic, the determination of derivative work and copyright 
infringement varied according to which part of the country (and which 
judicial Circuit) one referred to.  Sounds wild, but different Federal 
Circuits often use different tests.  So we opted for something firmly 
based in the programming world.

Mitchell



Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:

>James,
>
>I agree with the problems you've noted with MPL 1.1.  
>
>For most practical purposes, the Open Software License (OSL)
>accomplishes most of what MPL 1.1 does -- without those problems you
>mentioned.  The major difference is that MPL 1.1 applies on a
>file-by-file basis and the OSL deals consistently with "derivative
>works," but I never understood the importance of a file-by-file license
>anyway in most typical software.  
>
>/Larry Rosen
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: James E. Harrell, Jr. [mailto:jharrell at copernicusllc.com] 
>>Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 7:52 PM
>>To: David Johnson; Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group
>>Subject: RE: Procedure for using an approved license
>>
>>
>>Open Source friends,
>>
>>I've been looking at MPL 1.1 as well. One of the reasons I 
>>would replace the word "Netscape" with my own company name is #6.2:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>6.2. Effect of New Versions.
>>>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. No one 
>>    
>>
>>>other than Netscape has the right to modify the terms applicable
>>>to Covered Code created under this License.
>>>      
>>>
>>The last sentence is a difficult one for me- why would I ever want
>>*Netscape*
>>to be able to supplant this license with what they deem to be 
>>another "better" version? That version might say "All covered 
>>code automatically becomes the sole property of Netscape 
>>corporation..." Not suggesting that they would, but...
>>
>>Further, if I take this license to legal review and finally 
>>do find it to be acceptable for my product, what happens when 
>>MPL 1.2 comes out? The legal review is then pointless (or at 
>>least has to be re-done); but worse, if I don't like the 
>>terms of MPL 1.2, now I have a product that is licensed under 
>>terms that I don't find acceptable- and I have now way to 
>>keep you from using it under the terms of MPL 1.2.
>>
>>Now, give that MPL 1.1 is probably one of the most suitable 
>>licenses for commercial Open Source products... but there are 
>>some minor things that might not be acceptable for our 
>>lawyers... does that mean it's time to try another one 
>>specifically geared to Open Source commercial products that 
>>solves the templating problem (and maybe some others?)
>>
>>-- OR --
>>
>>Perhaps someone can really address the question that Dave 
>>asked- or maybe really my re-phrase of the original question:
>>
>>Is this *a* correct procedure? (I change "the" to "a")
>>Given this procedure, is this license automatically 'OSI certified'?
>>
>>
>>*NOTE* MPL 1.2 is solely used in conjecture for the purposes 
>>of this email!
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks for help understanding this too!
>>James
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: David Johnson [mailto:david at usermode.org]
>>>Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:03 PM
>>>To: Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group
>>>Subject: Re: Procedure for using an approved license
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sunday 06 October 2002 02:10 pm, Dave Nelson wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I wish to use the Mozilla 1.1 license, but don't know the exact 
>>>>procedures here.
>>>>
>>>>I copied the Mozilla 1.1 license from your site, replace 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>'Netscape' 
>>    
>>
>>>>with my company, and 'Mozilla' with my product, and Netscape 
>>>>trademarks with mine. No other changes were made. Then 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>added a line 
>>    
>>
>>>>under the title
>>>>stating:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>You did too much unnecessary work. The MPL is sufficiently 
>>>"templatized" that you don't need to do all this.
>>>
>>>You only need to change the words "Mozilla" and "Netscape" 
>>>      
>>>
>>if you make 
>>    
>>
>>>a derivative license of the MPL. This does not seem to be 
>>>      
>>>
>>your intent.
>>    
>>
>>>Far simpler: Just fill in EXHIBIT A with your name, 
>>>      
>>>
>>software, etc., and 
>>    
>>
>>>you are done!
>>>
>>>You *do* want to keep the name "Mozilla Public License", 
>>>      
>>>
>>because people 
>>    
>>
>>>already know what it is and what rights it confers. Changing 
>>>      
>>>
>>the name 
>>    
>>
>>>will only cause confusion.
>>>
>>>--
>>>David Johnson
>>>___________________
>>>http://www.usermode.org
>>>pgp public key on website
>>>--
>>>license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>--
>>license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>>
>>    
>>
>
>--
>license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>
>
>  
>

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