Subject: why MPL is hard for other companies to adopt? (was RE: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL)
From: "James Harrell" <jharrell@copernicusllc.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:31:56 -0500

Further commercial open source licensing thoughts, subject
line changed since this has become a tangent.

>> ps: we've looked at MPL and all of the other recommended licenses. I'm
>> sure we'll look again. But I'm also sure they each have problems for
>> most commercial organizations.
>
>Perhaps. But the MPL was specifically designed to be the very
>compromise of which you speak. It consumed tons of legal and
>community time. There was serious pressure from some large
>corporations to protect their IP rights and ability to sell
>software that mixed proprietary and free code.

Here's the specific problem I have with the MPL1.1:
"6.2. Effect of New Versions. 
  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. No one other than Netscape has the right to modify the
  terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License. "


The obvious major issue, is now that another commercial entity (Netscape)
has the authority to subvert the license. Not that they would, but they
could. Not having this section templated (ie: Insert company name here)
is a show stopper. Am I missing something?



James Harrell, CEO
Copernicus Business Systems
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3