Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla Firefox GNU is Not Unix Open Source Your Rights Online Apache News

Mozilla Foundation Begins Redraft Process For MPL 65

Posted by timothy
from the treading-lightly dept.
Barence writes "Mozilla has announced plans to redraft the open-source license underpinning projects such as Firefox. The Mozilla Public License 1.1 has been used to distribute numerous projects including Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenSolaris and Flex for over a decade. In the first phase of this process, Mozilla will release an alpha draft based on feedback already received. This will be followed by 'commentary, discussion, and further drafting, followed by beta and release candidate drafts.' Mozilla intends to 'seriously investigate' whether it can make the MPL compatible with the Apache license, in an effort to 'help projects using the MPL become more flexible about using Apache-licensed code.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Foundation Begins Redraft Process For MPL

Comments Filter:
  • by jonwil (467024) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @09:24AM (#31471726)

    Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BhaKi (1316335)

      Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.

      Wrong. Take a look at the first line on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.

        Wrong. Take a look at the first line on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License [wikipedia.org]

        Wrong. Read the text you're linking to:

        Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) is a free software license, produced by Sun Microsystems, based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL), version 1.1.

        Yes it's based on the MPL, but it's not the MPL.

        • by BhaKi (1316335)

          Yes it's based on the MPL, but it's not the MPL.

          I didn't mean that CDDL == MPL. I just meant CDDL is not all that different from MPL.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Wasn't CDDL derived from the MPL? With changes such as removing the clause that allowed Netscape to arbitrarily change the license at some point... The one that Mozilla is now using to change the MPL.

  • Iceweasle (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BluePeppers (1596987)

    I guess we'll still be stuck with iceweasle? As a corperation, I can't see them making that concession...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sakdoctor (1087155)

      I guess you don't use it, because it was re-branded as icecat three years ago.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        In Debian it's still called IceWeasel, that is the reason the GNU version changed its name.

      • by maxume (22995)

        Perhaps he uses Debian.

        • I use archlinux, and I think it's called shireotoko by default. I've rebranded mine, using the firebrand script, but frankly... well I don't like to play up to trolls, but the point of my comment was that a lot of people find that particular clause rather annoying. If you wish to be a penickity git and tell me it's icecat, I couldn't care less :)

  • H.264 (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Licence revision will allow them to keep a version of Firefox open while also allowing them to release a version with bundled H.264 support for the HTML5 video element.

    http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html
    http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf
    http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020363.html
    http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html
    etc, etc.

    Feels like a repost :/

    • I doubt it. Having read a few blogs from Mozilla employees, they're going to fight H.264 to they're left with no other choice and that's a long time off. Good luck to Mozilla. H.264 won't help the internet at all. It's now between Theora and maybe [hopefully] Google's [latest acquisition] On2.
    • by Gerv (15179)

      The MPL already allows the bundling of proprietary components, if Mozilla wanted to go down that route. But they don't - as the links you post show. Pay-on-the-door video standards are not good for the web.

      Gerv

  • by gr8_phk (621180) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @11:51AM (#31472428)
    What is the objective of the new license? Why don't any existing licences meet that objective? It's not really clear to me why any open source project can't settle for GPL, LGPL or BSD. Thus I ask, what are the objectives that are not met by these.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by smegmatic (1145201)
      The objective is to limit your freedoms more than the GPL, LGPL, and BSD licenses permit. That's always the objective when new licenses are made.
      • That line might make more sense if Mozilla wasn't offering the source code under the GPL and LGPL in addition to the MPL (Source [mozilla.org]). If you find the MPL restrictive you can always choose one of the others.

        • Look at it from the perspective of a developer. Let's say I want to contribute code to Firefox under the GPL. My two options are:

          1. Dual license it under the MPL as well, giving up some freedoms
          2. Fork Firefox

          Because option 2 is not really practical, everyone effectively plays by the rules of option 1.

          • Dual license it under the MPL as well, giving up some freedoms

            Exactly what freedoms do you think you're giving up? As the developer you have all the freedom in the world—nothing forces you to publish in the first place, just as nothing can force Mozilla to integrate and distribute your patch. So Mozilla wants you to license your code to them under the LGPL and MPL in addition to your preferred GPL in exchange for integration into their codebase. This is fair enough; they have the right to dictate terms regarding their own repository. As a result of this policy t

            • As the developer you have all the freedom in the world--nothing forces you to publish in the first place, just as nothing can force Mozilla to integrate and distribute your patch.

              You're forced to publish YOUR work according to THEIR rules. That's not all the freedom in the world by any stretch.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      That was my question too... Until I read the rest of TFS!

      Mozilla intends to 'seriously investigate' whether it can make the MPL compatible with the Apache license, in an effort to 'help projects using the MPL become more flexible about using Apache-licensed code.'

  • See https://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/

  • I'm sorry, maybe I'm not seeing the forest due to all the trees, but... so what?
    I don't care about lawyer-babble. In my eyes, we use Mozilla like this: a) free, b) don't try to sell it. Full stop.

    Who cares about some or other minor legal detail, as long as the result stays as we know it?

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.

Working...