Subject: RE: Procedure for using an approved license
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:46:38 -0700

James,

I agree with the problems you've noted with MPL 1.1.  

For most practical purposes, the Open Software License (OSL)
accomplishes most of what MPL 1.1 does -- without those problems you
mentioned.  The major difference is that MPL 1.1 applies on a
file-by-file basis and the OSL deals consistently with "derivative
works," but I never understood the importance of a file-by-file license
anyway in most typical software.  

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James E. Harrell, Jr. [mailto:jharrell@copernicusllc.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 7:52 PM
> To: David Johnson; Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group
> Subject: RE: Procedure for using an approved license
> 
> 
> Open Source friends,
> 
> I've been looking at MPL 1.1 as well. One of the reasons I 
> would replace the word "Netscape" with my own company name is #6.2:
> 
> >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 last sentence is a difficult one for me- why would I ever want
> *Netscape*
> to be able to supplant this license with what they deem to be 
> another "better" version? That version might say "All covered 
> code automatically becomes the sole property of Netscape 
> corporation..." Not suggesting that they would, but...
> 
> Further, if I take this license to legal review and finally 
> do find it to be acceptable for my product, what happens when 
> MPL 1.2 comes out? The legal review is then pointless (or at 
> least has to be re-done); but worse, if I don't like the 
> terms of MPL 1.2, now I have a product that is licensed under 
> terms that I don't find acceptable- and I have now way to 
> keep you from using it under the terms of MPL 1.2.
> 
> Now, give that MPL 1.1 is probably one of the most suitable 
> licenses for commercial Open Source products... but there are 
> some minor things that might not be acceptable for our 
> lawyers... does that mean it's time to try another one 
> specifically geared to Open Source commercial products that 
> solves the templating problem (and maybe some others?)
> 
> -- OR --
> 
> Perhaps someone can really address the question that Dave 
> asked- or maybe really my re-phrase of the original question:
> 
> Is this *a* correct procedure? (I change "the" to "a")
> Given this procedure, is this license automatically 'OSI certified'?
> 
> 
> *NOTE* MPL 1.2 is solely used in conjecture for the purposes 
> of this email!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for help understanding this too!
> James
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David Johnson [mailto:david@usermode.org]
> >Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:03 PM
> >To: Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group
> >Subject: Re: Procedure for using an approved license
> >
> >
> >On Sunday 06 October 2002 02:10 pm, Dave Nelson wrote:
> >> I wish to use the Mozilla 1.1 license, but don't know the exact 
> >> procedures here.
> >>
> >> I copied the Mozilla 1.1 license from your site, replace 
> 'Netscape' 
> >> with my company, and 'Mozilla' with my product, and Netscape 
> >> trademarks with mine. No other changes were made. Then 
> added a line 
> >> under the title
> >> stating:
> >
> >You did too much unnecessary work. The MPL is sufficiently 
> >"templatized" that you don't need to do all this.
> >
> >You only need to change the words "Mozilla" and "Netscape" 
> if you make 
> >a derivative license of the MPL. This does not seem to be 
> your intent.
> >
> >Far simpler: Just fill in EXHIBIT A with your name, 
> software, etc., and 
> >you are done!
> >
> >You *do* want to keep the name "Mozilla Public License", 
> because people 
> >already know what it is and what rights it confers. Changing 
> the name 
> >will only cause confusion.
> >
> >--
> >David Johnson
> >___________________
> >http://www.usermode.org
> >pgp public key on website
> >--
> >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> >
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3