On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:13:08 PM UTC-4, Hubert Figuière wrote: > On 22/05/12 02:47 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > > On 21/05/12 18:46, Hubert Figuière wrote: > >> I do believe it is important here to specify the version. While I have > >> no problem with LGPLv3, some legal departments are scared away by it > >> because of the patent clause in it. (they are also scared of GPLv3) > >> > >> This should be considered when evaluating the policy. > > > > Can you be more specific? Are you talking about the legal departments of > > potential users, of potential distributors, or of potential > > contributors? What is the exact scenario about which they are worried? > > And are there any public reports of these concerns? > > Legal departments in general. > > I'm not in their shoes, I'm not a lawyer, although I believe this is > wrong, but some companies explicitly prohibit using (L)GPLv3 software > just because of the patent clause. And by using I really mean as a user > (like using Emacs). > > Let alone contributing or redistributing. > > Hub
We have an enterprise list that *I think* is used for ESR [1]. It may make sense to run this proposal by that list to ensure it's getting out to those eyes. In general, it's difficult to know what people are doing with the Mozilla code base. A licensing stance change can have ramifications upstream. I think it's prudent to publicize this well (ie. outside of dev-planning) to ensure that we shake out as many issues as possible before proceeding with this change. Lawrence [1]http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/ _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
