[License-review] Legacy Approval: APL AROS Public License.
rfontana at redhat.com
Sat Jul 28 20:34:56 UTC 2012
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 04:01:07PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I would like an attorney to weigh in on whether the AROS APL is actually
> sufficiently identical to the MPL 1.1 to be called the MPL, though. Or
> is there something I'm not getting here?
I wasn't sure if this was a reference to the suggestion that they use
the built-in mechanism to 'relicense' under MPL 2.0 - but if so: I
haven't done a careful comparison but on a quick read it looked like
it was a case of one of those pure-vanity rebranded MPL 1.1s rather
than the often more problematic MPL 1.1 derivatives adding various
sorts of restrictions not in the original MPL 1.1.
I was just expressing the idea that if the project in the past had
seen fit to use a (purely rebranded) MPL 1.1 for itself, the project
of the present might be inclined to use the newer license that Mozilla
has drafted and adopted. It may, of course, be the case that the
project has forgotten why it decided to use a rebranded MPL 1.1 in the
past (if any particular thought even went into that decision) and has
no stake in continuing to use Mozilla-pedigree licenses.
More information about the License-review