Mistaken statement about MPL?

[Chuck Swiger]

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Wilson, Andrew wrote:
>> This talks about many things, but not specifically NPL.
> 
> Russ' statement implies that it is MPL derivatives like the NPL and CDDL
> they are concerned about rather than the MPL.
> Stallman was wise to copyright the GPL and control that copyright, the
> world would be a worse place if we had more than the two GPL derivatives
> (LGPL and Affero GPL) that they have allowed.

If so, how are you counting the GPLv3?  It's obviously derivative, too, just 
as the LGPL or Affero's, much less MySQL's little game with the GPL.

> I think the main problem is the assumption that Open Source folks are
> going to help you regardless of what license terms you set and who you
> are.

The OSI board isn't "Open Source folks" in general.  The OSI board appears to 
be creating dispute where none needs to exist, and is creating a rift between 
itself and the MPL people (as well as others in the Open Source community).

We speak for us, Bruce.  The OSI board can't do it alone.

> One reason that the NPL works at all is that the Mozilla Foundation
> _is_ a foundation. People are willing to give a legal non-profit a lot
> more trust than Sun Microsystems. Add to that the fact that the CDDL
> terms are assymetrical.

So what?  The CDDL isn't going to sneak up on you, or infect your source code, 
  any more than the GPL would.  If you don't like the CDDL, don't use software 
under that license.  (That's exactly what people who don't like the GPL do.)

Why is one a problem, and the other not?

> The main problem with the MPL seems to be that it has become the
> starting point for a number of licenses offered by folks who aren't
> intending to be equal partners.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

-- 
-Chuck