Subject: Re: For Approval: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:32:38 -0500

Michael Sparks scripsit:

> > and to consider using it as part of a list of recommended licenses in
> > place of the MPL.
> 
> This in particular caught my eye. Out of interest why do you say this? (If
> you're willing to say that is!) Based on several documents in the past,
> including the Nasa report on licenses I've been involved in various
> discussions at our workplace where the conclusion as to a license of
> choice has been the MPL. Put another way, what advantages do you think
> this has for a licensee and licensor over the MPL?

It's shorter, clearer, has better-crafted patent defenses, doesn't drag
in gratuituous concepts about electronic distribution or commercial
use, doesn't hard-code numbers like 12 months and 6 months, gets rid
of the messy LEGAL file, gets rid of Exhibit A, lets licensors opt
out of new versions of the license, and doesn't hard-code California
law/venue/jurisdiction.

That should be enough to go on with.

-- 
A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want         John Cowan
to drive him out of town isn't a rabbi,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and a rabbi who lets them do it                 jcowan@reutershealth.com
isn't a man.    --Jewish saying                 http://www.reutershealth.com