I'll assume this is not a troll, hopefully I'm not wrong :) Responses inline.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:30 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey all, I'm not active in the Mozilla community but am a fan and user. I > have some concerns. I'd like for someone to answer these questions that I > have, and I guess I'd also like to just start a discussion about this topic, > too. Thanks. > > > My understanding is that the MPL is a copyleft license, but it's not as > strong as the GPL. In what ways exactly does it differ? IANAL, etc. The easiest way to describe the difference between the LGPL and the MPL 2.0 is that the LGPL applies copyleft at the binary level (in other words, to a shared library) while the MPL 2.0 applies it at the source code file level. This allows MPL 2.0 licensed code to be statically linked with proprietary code, while LGPL code must be dynamically linked. https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html covers this in some detail. > More specifically, why is it that this > http://linuxgizmos.com/firefox-os-fork-h5os-gets-a-100-million-boost/ was > able to happen? For the same reason that any commercialization of open source technology does, it's permitted by the license? There are many billion dollar companies doing work based on the Linux kernel, for example. > Aren't the H5OS people essentially leaching off the open source FirefoxOS > without contributing anything back? My understanding is that they plan to > make all of their own additions proprietary. Seeing as there are no public products, code, plans, etc, there's no way to know what they plan to do. But I would encourage you not to worry. There are a number of vendors who "leech" off of Linux, contributing at most crappy drivers for their crappy hardware (if they even do that, look at Allwinner for example). That doesn't seem to be a problem for Linux. > So why does Mozilla use the MPL if it allows stuff like that to happen? For the same reason that people choose even less restrictive licenses like Apache/MIT/BSD over the MPL 2.0, the LGPL, or the GPL: they believe that making their code easier to reuse is worth the possible consequences of not requiring disclosure of modifications. > Doesn't that represent an existential threat to Mozilla itself, since anyone > can come along and use the open sourced stuff to buttress their own closed > source applications/systems, which will then come around and compete with the > original open source stuff? How can Mozilla compete against something like > this, since any innovation they make can be integrated into a competing > platform, but Mozilla can't do it the other way around? Mozilla has been using the MPL for 15+ years and it has never imperiled the survival of the project before, so its hard to see how it can be an existential threat. Mozilla employs a few hundred engineers to work on the code full time, so if you are maintaining a fork just keeping up with upstream will require a lot of effort. That encourages any downstream consumers to upstream their changes to avoid the maintenance burden. Nearly all of the Firefox forks that I'm aware of are either very minor forks (Iceweasel, Icecat, etc) or are far behind (Pale Moon, Flock, etc). The only exception I can think of is TenFourFox (Cameron Kaiser is a hero). For end users a lot of the value of Mozilla products comes in the form of the various brands which tell them they're getting a high quality open source product developed in line with the goals of the Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla trademarks are not freely licensed. The need to create/market/etc your own branding serves as another economic disincentive to forking our code and refusing to contribute back. > Didn't a similar thing happen in the 90s with BSD and OSX? When Mozilla was > created, that whole thing had already happened, so shouldn't they have known > this would be a risk? Why wasn't Mozilla just using the GPL from the > beginning? What is the advantage of MPL over GPL, given the disadvantage of > MPL that I'm talking about? Mozilla was created with a less restrictive license because Netscape wanted to be able to incorporate open source Mozilla code into its proprietary products. The original Netscape Public License had no copyleft at all. > And what about now, is there any chance of Mozilla switching its stuff to the > GPL? Is there any chance of Mozilla strengthening the "share-alike" aspect of > the MPL? How difficult would it be to change the license to make it protect > open source better? How difficult would it be to switch to GPL? And what > needs to happen in order to spur that change? IMO this H5OS stuff sounds like > a pretty big deal, and theoretically all of Mozilla's code is vulnerable to > that kind of thing, and there could be more similar events in the future. I > hope you guys really think about this. I am not omniscient but I don't see any reason why this one incident would result in any licensing changes at Mozilla. Licensing is not a silver bullet, particularly when dealing with organizations based in parts of the world that are, shall we say, less respectful of IP law. Ask the linux-sunxi community how effective the GPL has been at compelling compliance from Allwinner. Ultimately I think this will turn out to be a relatively minor event, and one that would not have been prevented by a stronger license anyways. - Kyle _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
