For Approval: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)

[Michael Sparks]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, John Cowan wrote:

> Michael Sparks scripsit:
>
> > > and to consider using it as part of a list of recommended licenses in
> > > place of the MPL.
> >
> > This in particular caught my eye. Out of interest why do you say this? (If
> > you're willing to say that is!) Based on several documents in the past,
> > including the Nasa report on licenses I've been involved in various
> > discussions at our workplace where the conclusion as to a license of
> > choice has been the MPL. Put another way, what advantages do you think
> > this has for a licensee and licensor over the MPL?
>
> It's shorter, clearer, has better-crafted patent defenses, doesn't drag
> in gratuituous concepts about electronic distribution or commercial
> use, doesn't hard-code numbers like 12 months and 6 months, gets rid
> of the messy LEGAL file, gets rid of Exhibit A, lets licensors opt
> out of new versions of the license, and doesn't hard-code California
> law/venue/jurisdiction.
>
> That should be enough to go on with.

It certainly is - thanks!

Best Regards,


Michael.