Re: Mozilla and Non-Copyleft Licensing

On 2/16/2013 8:49 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> 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

I'm sorry. I was reading the wrong newsgroup. I'd missed the correct 
location for this discussion, where much more context lives. I have 
answered my own question.

- A