Procedure for using an approved license

James E. Harrell, Jr. jharrell at
Mon Oct 7 02:51:32 UTC 2002

Open Source friends,

I've been looking at MPL 1.1 as well. One of the reasons I would
replace the word "Netscape" with my own company name is #6.2:

>6.2. Effect of New Versions.
>Once Covered Code has been published under a particular
>version of the License, You may always continue to use it
>under the terms of that version. You may also choose to
>use such Covered Code under the terms of any subsequent
>version of the License published by Netscape. No one other
>than Netscape has the right to modify the terms applicable
>to Covered Code created under this License.

The last sentence is a difficult one for me- why would I ever want
to be able to supplant this license with what they deem to be another
version? That version might say "All covered code automatically becomes the
sole property of Netscape corporation..." Not suggesting that they would,

Further, if I take this license to legal review and finally do find it to
be acceptable for my product, what happens when MPL 1.2 comes out? The legal
review is then pointless (or at least has to be re-done); but worse, if I
like the terms of MPL 1.2, now I have a product that is licensed under terms
that I don't find acceptable- and I have now way to keep you from using it
the terms of MPL 1.2.

Now, give that MPL 1.1 is probably one of the most suitable licenses for
commercial Open Source products... but there are some minor things that
not be acceptable for our lawyers... does that mean it's time to try another
one specifically geared to Open Source commercial products that solves the
templating problem (and maybe some others?)

-- OR --

Perhaps someone can really address the question that Dave asked- or maybe
really my re-phrase of the original question:

Is this *a* correct procedure? (I change "the" to "a")
Given this procedure, is this license automatically 'OSI certified'?

*NOTE* MPL 1.2 is solely used in conjecture for the purposes of this email!

Thanks for help understanding this too!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Johnson [mailto:david at]
>Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:03 PM
>To: Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group
>Subject: Re: Procedure for using an approved license
>On Sunday 06 October 2002 02:10 pm, Dave Nelson wrote:
>> I wish to use the Mozilla 1.1 license, but don't know the exact
>> procedures here.
>> I copied the Mozilla 1.1 license from your site, replace 'Netscape' with
>> my company, and 'Mozilla' with my product, and Netscape trademarks with
>> mine. No other changes were made. Then added a line under the title
>> stating:
>You did too much unnecessary work. The MPL is sufficiently
>"templatized" that
>you don't need to do all this.
>You only need to change the words "Mozilla" and "Netscape" if you make a
>derivative license of the MPL. This does not seem to be your intent.
>Far simpler: Just fill in EXHIBIT A with your name, software,
>etc., and you
>are done!
>You *do* want to keep the name "Mozilla Public License", because people
>already know what it is and what rights it confers. Changing the name will
>only cause confusion.
>David Johnson
>pgp public key on website
>license-discuss archive is at

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list