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.'"
Iceweasle (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess we'll still be stuck with iceweasle? As a corperation, I can't see them making that concession...
Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (Score:2, Interesting)
A new version of the MPL will automatically relicense their existing code. None of those licenses can do that.
H.264 (Score:1, Interesting)
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 :/
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Interesting)
(I am not the orginal poster). But inspecting his post, this seems to be fairly easy: [b][em][strong]you text here[/b][/em][/strong]. This is the result: result . Slashdot should really not allow stuff like this.
What is the objective? (Score:3, Interesting)