Open Source Licence for my cms?

Mitchell Baker mitchell at
Thu Oct 17 19:47:56 UTC 2002

The isues you raise have been troublesome for many.  The Sun Public 
License is actually the Mozilla Public License with exactly the changes 
you have pointed out -- who can change the license, jurisdiction, etc. 
 It seems to me that the next version of the MPL should allow different 
choices for new Original Code.  (That is, code not based on 
releases.)  So others could adopt the MPL for use with their project and 
make their own choices. I suspect there will be some issues when code 
with different choice of law and venue provisions are combined and end 
up in court, but I haven't done research on this lately.

But until this change is made, you would need to rename the license and 
change the parts you mention.  If you do so you, it might be nice to put 
a header or footer that says "The [X] Public License is the Mozilla 
Public License v1.1, with the following changes."  Sun did this when 
they originally posted the Sun Public License, I' m not sure why they 
removed this notice.  The Jabber Open Source License is also a variant 
of the Mozilla Public License, with the preamble added and some other 

If you use the GPL, as was suggested, you will get a different scope of 
license (i.e., the strong copyleft) which you may or may not want.  You 
would probably have a different set of questions about future changes to 
the GPL, which wouldn't be in your control either.

Mitchell Baker

Goran Svensson wrote:

>I am about to release a Content Management System written in Cold Fusion to the Open Source Community for free, the reason for that is partly because it is not possible to protect CF scripts, due to poor encryption, and I have also found lots of other compelling reasons to do so during my research in to free software. 
>I have read many of the license in the OSI web and find it difficult to find a license that match my requirements. I am looking for a license where contributors have to make source code of modifications and scripts available to others and where I have the right to modify the terms in the License not Sun or Jabber etc and where International or the Licensors country's law is applicable or as in the Zope License nothing is written about it. I have found the one with a preamble useful when it come to understanding them. 
>My problem is to find a license that are suitable for a mix of interpreted code (scripts) and source code. It´s also difficult for me to accept any jurisdiction than International or Swedish law.
>For example the Sun Public License suits me well except for jurisdiction, source code and the rights to modify the terms in the License:
>any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. 
>6.2. Effect of New Versions.
>No one other than Sun has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.
>I think that Sun Public License or Jabber Open Source License have come closest to match my requirements right now, but not close enough. If you know of a license that will match my requirements please point me in the right directions and the right procedures for using it.
>/Göran Svensson
>license-discuss archive is at

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list