For Approval: CDDL - license stewardship

[Mitchell Baker]

Also, the license steward for the MPL is now the Mozilla Foundation, not 
Netscape Communications Corp.  This change was made as part of the 
agreements relating to the Mozilla Foundation.

I don't want to derail Russ' points below, which are great topics for 
discussion.  I'll address getting the MPL changed to reflect this 
separately. 

Mitchell

Russell Nelson wrote:

>I want to start a new thread because I'm changing the subject.  And
>yet it has to do with the CDDL approval process, hence the precise
>composition of the subject.
>
>The CDDL folks (Claire and Andrew) have raised a interesting point
>with their use of the term 'license steward'.  Both the MPL and the
>CDDL each state that you may re-license under subsequent versions.
>The MPL names Netscape Communications Corporation as the author of new
>versions, and the CDDL names Sun Microsystems.
>
>So, why have we had so many re-submissions of the MPL?  Because it's a
>good license that names Mozilla as a trademark you have no permission
>to use?  Because it's a good license that names California Law and
>Santa Clara County as venue?  Or because it's a good license that
>gives Netscape Communications Corporation permission to change the
>terms of the license?
>
>I want to be clear that I'm not judging the MPL based on my opinion of
>it.  I'm judging it by the fact that so many people have felt they had
>to change specific names in it.
>
>And then the next question to ask is "Is Sun submitting the CDDL as a
>separate license rather than as a revision to the MPL because they
>want to be license stewards?"  How should Netscape (and by implication
>the Mozilla Foundation and by implication Mitchell) feel about this?
>Does OSI want its powerhouse licenses to have outside stewards?  Or do
>we want "the best" licenses to be given over to us to be stewards?
>
>I've read the diffs between MPL and CDDL.  There is no change in
>intent.  There's changes in wording, which Mitchell has expressed a
>concern about, just as any programmer would be concerned if somebody
>else has recoded a module of theirs, keeping the same API.  "What was
>wrong with the old one?"  "Did you introduce any bugs?"
>
>  
>