Re: Mozilla and Non-Copyleft Licensing

On 2/13/2013 8:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Having taken in the various viewpoints, I suggest the next step is a
> concrete proposal. Here is one.
>
> We should update the Mozilla License Policy[0]. On the particular topic
> of which license to choose for a new project, it should say:
>
> "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."
>
> Gerv
>
> [0] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html
>

Why this line "No other license is acceptable"? Or from your original 
post "We should clearly and by name forbid the use of other licenses for 
Mozilla-originated codebases, without specific permission and in 
exceptional circumstances"?

Is this solely about the requirement for the patent protection clause?

- A