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.'"
OpenSolaris is not MPL (Score:4, Informative)
Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
I guess we'll still be stuck with iceweasle? As a corperation, I can't see them making that concession...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess you don't use it, because it was re-branded as icecat three years ago.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In Debian it's still called IceWeasel, that is the reason the GNU version changed its name.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps he uses Debian.
Re: (Score:1)
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 :)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Do you have a licence to post in that crazy huge font?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops. Looks like my pseudo-HTML is not well formed (look at the closing brackets). But you get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
He pretty quickly got modded to -1 so the engine doesn't really need to try to do anything clever.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the GPL is that it grants a certain set of rights to anyone who gets the software, and requires them to pass those rights on to anyone they redistribute it to. Making it modular would make it easier for people to remove rights from the GPL that they don't like (say, the anti-Tivoization provision in GPL3). The FSF would never agree to it. (You might be able to just reuse their license text, depending on how it's licensed, though :)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A new version of the MPL will automatically relicense their existing code. None of those licenses can do that.
Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (Score:5, Informative)
AC didn't quote this part:
6.2. Effect of New Versions. This clause guarantees that mozilla.org will never be able to take away rights that you have under the version of the license under which your code or modifications were created.
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 [The Mozilla Foundation]. No one other than Netscape [The Mozilla Foundation] has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.
It is going to take a pretty fantastic interpretation of that clause to argue that it doesn't allow use of code under later versions of the license.
Re: (Score:1)
Well there Mr. Imaginative, if the Mozilla Foundation is working up a new license that they want to be compatible with the Apache license, do you think there is a possibility that they will update their projects to use this new version of the license?
I guess it would have been more accurate if I had said "a new version of the MPL will allow them to relicense their existing code simply by updating files", but for the purposes of a Slashdot discussion, "automatically" was fine.
Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (Score:4, Informative)
Not everyone wants to give away their code in a way that it can end up reused inside a proprietary closed source project.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Giving the freedom to take away others' freedom isn't my cup of tea, personally.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a cyclical argument.
Re: (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 mor
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and by the way, I have nothing against people who choose to license their software with the BSD license. I like all open source licenses. It's simply a difference of opinion in one particular issue.
Re: (Score:1)
I have the freedom to drive a car. I do not have the freedom to drive a car on private property where I am not wanted, as doing so would infringe on the freedom of another to hold private property and keep it private. In the same way, those who write code have the freedom to keep their code private as they want.
It is a balancing act.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL proponents believe that proprietary software is morally wrong,
Not necessarily. They often believe proprietary software is not a valid model e.g. artificial scarcity doesn't reflect the real world. People's motivations are complex.
---
The patent mafia: When all they've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Re: (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.
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: (Score:2)
Java used to be much worse about it, when the code was much less open, but it still happens.
You mean “Microsoft’s ugly hack of a JVM was intentionally much worse, to kill off Sun. But since Sun sued MS, and won, it has gone much better. Even for others trying to do the same thing as MS.”.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I mean "the closed Sun source code hid violations of their own published Java API's that were difficult to fix or even discover". Microsoft's abuses of the API, and their claims that it was still "Java" though it had features and relied on behavior that violated the API's and the security models, was a separate set of issues. Both, however, could have been avoided by using a more open license model.
Sun's increasingly open source code helped quite a lot since then. I do hope that Oracle avoids closing th
Re: (Score:2)
What Scott Cooper said. The BSD license is a pretty decent license, IMHO. Certainly much better than the average "license" one "accepts" when installing proprietary software. But, it DOES deny certain rights to end users. Under the BSD, it can conceivably be illegal to decompile, disassembe, and reverse engineer a software. Which, to me, is ludicrous.
If/when I purchase a software from you, and it just "almost" meets my needs, I want to get into it, and alter this or that to make it actually WORK for me.
Re: (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.
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
What is the objective? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the scope of the copyleft has been explicitly named as something Mozilla is not going to do.
http://mpl.mozilla.org/scope/ [mozilla.org]
Gerv
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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:
Because option 2 is not really practical, everyone effectively plays by the rules of option 1.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.'
Revision process starts by commenting on MPL 1.1 (Score:1)
See https://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/
...and? (Score:2)
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?