Mozilla Foundation Begins Redraft Process For MPL 65
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.'"
Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (Score:0, Insightful)
This effort is unnecessary. Several suitable licenses already exist. They can use this one [opensource.org], or this one [opensource.org], or this one [opensource.org], or even this one [opensource.org].
Those are all true open source licenses, which maximize freedom for everybody.
Re:OpenSolaris is not MPL (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (Score:2, Insightful)
The beauty of the current situation around software sales and licensing is that you can factor that requirement into your purchasing decisions, while others are free to offer software with greater limitations.
Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everyone wants to give away their code in a way that it can end up reused inside a proprietary closed source project.
I agree. People put their project under a BSD license, and then their work gets used, but they get nothing in return and they start complaining that they don't receive enough donations for their project. (saw this recently in some /. article)
Disclaimer: I'm not against the BSD license (or other licenses that are 'more free' than the (L-)GPL), but IMO people should keep the consequences in mind when they decide to use it for their project. You actually say: here's my code, use it, I expect nothing in return. So don't complain if they do as you say.
Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (Score:4, Insightful)
And some BSD license folks have encountered _precisely_ that problem. Take a good look at the history of MySQL inside of Sun's commercial licensing model.
There's nothing like publishing "open source" code, having someone modify it, proprietize it for their products, _break it_ for interoperability, and have to deal with their concealed changes as the primary author when their clients come whining to you about how it doesn't work. I've seen this happen with Kerberos, CIFS, Java, and oh dear lord, it's been a problem with device drivers. Open API's aren't enough, either: I've seen it happen with PCL, PDF, and Postscript as well.
Java used to be much worse about it, when the code was much less open, but it still happens.
Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (Score:3, Insightful)
Giving the freedom to take away others' freedom isn't my cup of tea, personally.
Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
Fist, the GPL or BSD by themselves can't do anything, I mean, who gives or takes freedoms is the developer.
When the developer licenses his software with the GPL, he's taking away that one specific freedom directly.
When he chooses the BSD, he doesn't take away any freedom, but enables those who use his software to include it in software that takes away ALL the "software freedoms".
Now, what matters is: how important do you consider those freedoms? The GPL proponents believe that proprietary software is morally wrong, so the "freedom" they take is only used to cause harm to others.
Re:What is the objective? (Score:2, Insightful)