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