<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Larry<br>
<br>
This is very helpful. Larry, I didn't mean this as a question to you
personally. I meant it
as a general question to the list because there does seem to be a
growing consensus about the MPL which I think is probably incorrect. I
appreciate your response. I'm sorry if this appeared to be personal,
I didn't mean it that way at all. <br>
<br>
As to substance, I continue to think there has been a giant disconnect
here. I appreciate Larry's help in sorting through this, and would
appreciate any other clarity people can provide. <br>
<br>
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20050914152725.GA59547@mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The MPL expressly defines "Initial Developer" and "Contributor" in section
1.6 and 1.1, respectively. If there is no difference, why two definitions?
</pre>
</blockquote>
In large part that was to make sure that the Initial Developer made
grants to the entire release it made, and the Contributors make grants
with respect to their contributions; it was an attempt to make sure
that a Contributor was required to make grants for the initial code
release. It was also intended to deal with a timing issue --
Contributors should make their IP grants when they use the code, not at
the same date that the Initial Developer released it. <br>
<br>
The Initial Developer is *<b>also</b>* a Contributor. The Initial
Developer creates Modifications just like anyone else, and every
obligation of a Contributor applies. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20050914152725.GA59547@mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why all those extra sections that describe the rights and obligations of the
two in possibly different ways. This isn't just the duplication of sections
2.1 and 2.2. All of section 3 describes what a Contributor must do but
doesn't demand the same of the Initial Developer. Not that Mozilla or others
who use its license actually discriminate in practice, but the license does.
I admit I didn't compare those sections word for word; I must have assumed,
based on an earlier NPL license, that there were subtle "additional rights."
If I have been confused by this, I'm sure others are as well. I'm sorry if I
described your license unfairly.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
If anyone else thinks there is some special rights for the Initial
Developer I would love to hear it. Perhaps there is a drafting error
or something else I've missed. If not, I would like to end the view
that the MPL has special rights for the Initial Developer.<br>
<br>
The Netscape license did have special rights for the initial
developer. I have a question about that, which I'll put in a separate
email. <br>
<br>
Mitchell<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20050914152725.GA59547@mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
/Larry Rosen
_____
From: Mitchell Baker [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Mitchell@mozilla.org">mailto:Mitchell@mozilla.org</a>]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 11:44 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a>
Subject: Re: OVPL summary
I would appreciate it if I could get a precise statement of what additional
rights the Initial Developer gets in the MPL. I know there was a lot of
discussion about having Section 2.1 and 2.2, but I couldn't understand the
extra rights that the Initial Developer is supposed to get.
I understand that Netscape got special rights under the Netscape Public
License, but still do not understand this discusison with relation to the
Mozilla Public License.
mitchell
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Mark Radcliffe wrote:
I agree that such differences in rights is not discrimination
under the OSD. Many of the existing licenses are not
perfectly recipricol.
As Mark correctly says, many OSI-approved licenses, including the venerable
MPL and CPL licenses, are not perfectly reciprocal. They grant (or reserve)
some rights to an initial developer that other licensees don't have. If we
say that such licenses violate the OSD, we'd be forced to deprecate many
ancient and respected licenses. The OVPL goes farther than the others--and
some may want to amend the OSD to prevent this extreme--but under today's
OSD, I've told others privately, the OVPL should be approved.
I've also told people privately that I don't like such special privileges in
open source licenses. I prefer equal reciprocity. Equal reciprocity was a
basic principle in drafting OSL 3.0, and its section 1(c) reciprocity
provision applies the exact same license terms to the original licensor and
any downstream distributors. That was on purpose.
Open source contributors may be reluctant to contribute to an OVPL project
owned by others. Many copyright owners of contributions either want to be
treated equally, or will negotiate special partnership arangements with
their up-stream licensors for consideration. I don't think they will
appreciate special rights built into the project's license. But that's a
marketing and public relations risk that OVPL licensors will be taking, not
an OSD compliance issue.
Unless the OSD is properly amended.
/Larry Rosen
-----Original Message-----
From: Radcliffe, Mark [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Mark.Radcliffe@dlapiper.com">mailto:Mark.Radcliffe@dlapiper.com</a>]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:47 AM
To: Chuck Swiger; Brian C
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a>
Subject: RE: OVPL summary
I agree that such differences in rights is not discrimination
under the OSD. Many of the existing licenses are not
perfectly recipricol.
I would phrase it somewhat differently since droit de
l'auteur is a right only in certain countries. As the
copyright owner (generally the case), the initial developer
has a complete set of rights only some of which are licensed
under the license. The most practical effect of these rights
is mentioned by Chuck, to license the work under a different
license. On the other hand, all licensees will receive only
the rights from the initial developer and other contributors
under the license, so their rights by their very nature are
more limited.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Swiger [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:chuck@codefab.com">mailto:chuck@codefab.com</a>] Sent:
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 4:54 AM
To: Brian C
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a>
Subject: Re: OVPL summary
Brian C wrote:
[ ... ]
So perhaps the OVPL presents a more specific question to OSI: Is a
license that grants greater rights to an initial developer than it
grants to other licensees consistent with OSI's principles, in
particular, does it constitute "discrimination against persons or
groups"?
No. The author of the software generally has significant
additional rights on the original software beyond what a
proposed license grants to other people, by virtue of common
law where that applies ("droit d'auteur"), having the right
to release under a different license, etc.
So long as people can continue to modify and redistribute the
software openly, asking people who want to make proprietary
modifications to grant the original developer the right to
reuse and redistribute such modifications for themselves is
OK. However, part of granting full Open Source rights to
everyone means that the software has to be feasible for
others to redistribute, even if the original developer
disagrees or no longer exists.
-- -Chuck
______________________________________________________________
_______________________
The information contained in this email may be confidential
and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use
of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message
is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message. To
contact our email administrator directly, send to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:postmaster@dlapiper.com">postmaster@dlapiper.com</a>
Thank you.
______________________________________________________________
_______________________
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>