Re: Mozilla and Non-Copyleft Licensing

--===============3294194786785957276==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_88CFC74A-E023-449E-A031-DC00FF6D2E3D"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1


--Apple-Mail=_88CFC74A-E023-449E-A031-DC00FF6D2E3D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

On 2013-02-13, at 11:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:

> Having taken in the various viewpoints, I suggest the next step is a
> concrete proposal. Here is one.
>=20
> We should update the Mozilla License Policy[0]. On the particular =
topic
> of which license to choose for a new project, it should say:
>=20
> "New Mozilla-originated software projects may choose either the MPL =
2.0
> or the Apache License 2.0. No other license is acceptable. When
> integrating with, building on or relating to an existing codebase, the
> license of that codebase should be chosen. Otherwise, the licensing =
team
> recommends MPL 2.0 for client-side code, and either for server-side
> code. However, the decision should be taken on a case-by-case basis in
> consultation with the licensing team."

I don't think it should be necessary to consult with licensing@ if a =
project is choosing one of the two acceptable licenses.  This strikes me =
as unnecessary overhead and friction, when the policy should strive for =
the minimum necessary work needed to comply.  Project owners should be =
free to choose either of the acceptable licenses based on their own =
circumstances.

On that principle, I would propose that we simply adopt the first three =
sentences of the above text, and cut the rest.

-- Mike=

--Apple-Mail=_88CFC74A-E023-449E-A031-DC00FF6D2E3D--

--===============3294194786785957276==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal

--===============3294194786785957276==--