Procedure for using an approved license

Fri Oct 18 21:55:32 UTC 2002

On review, I think the Open Software License is more like the GPL in 
scope than it is the MPL.

Larry notes that the OSL applies to derivative works rather than files.  
This means that all the complexities of defining a derivative work are 
reflected in the license.  It's not that easy to know precisely what is 
and isn't a derivative work.  One would think it would be, but the case 
law is complex.  Last I researched this, the exact tests used to 
determine whether something is a derivative work varied by judicial 
circuit in this U.S.  Also, I'm not sure if a derivative work under U.S. 
law is exactly the same as under European law, or of the mechanisms by 
which international treaty deals with this, if at all.

Even more importantly, many entities do not want derivative works to be 
governed by the GPL, MPL or OSL.  Assume someone takes JavaScript and 
incorporates it into a product.  That product may well be a derivative 
work.  Yet the creator of that work may not want the entire work to be 
governed by the OSL, MPL or GPL.  In fact, there are a ton of projects 
and products that use JavaScript and I'm sure many of them have no 
intention of converting the entire project or product to open source.  
(Maybe we'd like them to, but the MPL is explicitly designed to allow 
authors to decide if and when their original work moves into the open 
source/free software world.)

So I suspect there are many developers who are content with the MPL but 
would not be with the OSL.

In general, the relative simplicity of the OSL is appealing.  But some 
of the additional topics in the MPL seem important to me.  For example, 
Sections 3.6 and 3.7 make it clear once the source availability 
requirements for MPL code have been meet, projects and companies are 
welcome to combine MPL code with other code, and to distribute that 
combined work under an End User License Agreement that differs from the 
MPL.   I'm not sure what the OSL envisions here, and it feels closer to 
the GPL model.  The explicit language in the MPL makes MPL code much 
easier for many projects to use.

The OSL is indeed reinforcing my view that the MPL should be revised 
again and simplified.  I don't see the OSL as taking its place.

Larry, can you explain the thinking behind the warranty in the OSL?

I'll be traveling with probably limited access for the next week, so may 
not be able to respond right away.

Mitchell

Mitchell Baker wrote:

> 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
>
>

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