Mozilla Public License 2 Alpha 3; request for early review prior to formal submission for approval

John Cowan cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Fri Nov 19 17:02:40 UTC 2010


Luis Villa scripsit:

> If it would be helpful for OSI, I can create a master redline from 1.1
> that incorporates all changes and commentaries into a single document,  
> but that will be a few days.

It would be very helpful, I think.

> We've gotten a lot of private feedback, which is reflected in the
> various drafts, so we're not short of legal advice, generally.

A minor point: 11.2 defines "compatible Software" but 11.3 uses
"compatible Covered Software".  For the avoidance of doubt, have 11.2
define "Compatible Covered Software".  In addition, 11.2 should allow
the use of other words to the same effect, and not require that the
exact text of Appendix A be used.  Finally, consider moving 11.1 and
11.2 themselves to Section 1.

I also find the language in 2.3 about "no new grants" disturbing when read
in conjunction with 10.2 and 11.1.  If the Mozilla Foundation decided to
add more Secondary Licenses to 11.1 in MPLv3, then it would be necessary
for anyone other than the owner who upgrades a source-code distribution
from MPLv2 to MPLv3 to add language saying that the new Secondary Licenses
are inapplicable.  (This may be academic, considering that the approved
language in Appendix A enumerates the Secondary Licenses explicitly.)

> However, we've received no specific commentary on OSI/OSD compliance,  

I will drive a stake into the ground and say "This license is obviously
OSD-compliant."

-- 
John Cowan    cowan at ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Half the lies they tell about me are true.
        --Tallulah Bankhead, American actress



More information about the License-review mailing list