CDDL vs. MPL assymmetry (was Re: Mistaken statement about MPL?)
Mitchell at mozilla.org
Tue Apr 12 21:57:36 UTC 2005
As best I can tell, this comment is aimed at the fact that there is an
grant made by the Initial Developer and a grant made by all
Contributors. The grants are in separate clauses of the license. The
grants *are not different.* There are no special rights to the Initial
Developer. The grants are separate because we wanted to be clear about
the scope of the code to which each entity makes a grant. If a
subsequent contributor uses one module of code, for example, it might
not make sense for that contributor to make IP grants to all the code it
did *not* use. (It's a complex analysis). The CDDL puts all the grant
language into one clause. it might be better -- it's possible this is a
more elegant drafting solution. It might be worse -- it's hard to get
everything in one place. We haven't really had a good discussion about
the differences or why one might be better.
If, after more careful analysis, it turns out that the CDDL drafters
have found a way to improve on the grant -- great. That's why the MPL
allows people to make changes. And that's why I hope we all think
carefully before deciding that the freedom the MPL allows in improving
license terms is "a failure."
And if this particular clause of the CDDL turns out to be a nicer
clause, I still remain deeply disappointed by the way this has been
Alex Bligh wrote:
> --On 12 April 2005 13:27 -0700 Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>> Add to that the fact that the CDDL
>> terms are assymetrical.
> Could you expand on why the CDDL is more asymmetrical than the MPL?
> As someone intending to base a license on the CDDL because it appeared
> to clean up a lot of MPL problems, I'd be interested to know your
> view on what substantive asymmetry it introduced.
> I am already aware of the "License Steward is the Initial Developer
> in most current cases" argument.
More information about the License-discuss