mitchell
I’ll comment on the MPL issues.
Anyone using MPL code must make sure that any modification to that code is made available in source code form under the terms of the MPL. (A "Modification" is any change to an MPL file, or any file which includes MPL code (Section 1.9).) There is no choice here. MPL code must always be open source software. The requirements regarding source availability are found in Sections 3.1 through 3.5 of the MPL.
Once the obligations regarding availability of source code under the MPL have been met, the MPL allows great flexibility. It explicitly allows the combination of MPL code with code governed by other licenses into a larger whole (Section 3.7). The MPL also explicitly allows the distribution of executable versions of MPL code under the terms of a different license (Section 3.6).
This allows us to make sure that MPL code is always open and not privatized. At the same time, it allows those building products to decide what licensing arrangements make the most sense for the completed product. It has been quite common for companies to make contributions to the Mozilla codebase, meet the requirements of free source availability under the MPL, and then create a hybrid product licensed under different terms.
We anticipate that some companies will find it makes more sense to voluntarily move additional elements of their product to an open source license and reduce the amount of their product licensed otherwise. That decision depends on the company; it is not a decision dictated by the MPL.
ActiveState has been a valued contributor to the Mozilla project. Modifications to MPL files have been submitted to the Mozilla tree in compliance with the MPL. Furthermore, the pyXPCOM project represents a significant amount of work and a serious contribution to Mozilla’s goal of integrating with other open source communities.
I leave to others the discussion of whether Komodo ought to be released under the MPL. But it is the case that the MPL leaves this decision to ActiveState.
Mitchell Baker
mozilla.org
Frank Hecker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Brad Johnson wrote:I can only conclude that ActiveState has either screwed up or is
thumbing its nose at the MPL.
My apologies for not responding to this yet. I'll pass this on to
mozilla.org staff.I don't even know what the implications are for the dual-licensed GPL
code.
It's not clear that there are any. I believe the main question at hand
is whether ActiveState is properly complying with the terms of the MPL
(and NPL). Regarding dual-licensed code, it's always been my opinion
that if a distributor of dual-licensed code complies with the MPL (or
NPL) terms in their own use of the code then they are not any obligation
to comply with the GPL terms at the same time.
Frank
