Gervase Markham wrote:
>> I am asking, because I think that making the MPL compatible might be
>> the better way for the relicensing.
>
> Please read the FAQ on this issue.
Gerv, as I said, I *did* read the FAQ. Most of the arguments there I
addressed already. The remaining ones are no-brainers:
> Modifying the MPL itself would have taken more time and effort
There is no support in the FAQ for this claim.
> the Mozilla project (like other projects) was already making use of a
> multiple license scheme without apparent problems.
There obviously are problems with some people who don't like the GPL.
Those probably just didn't happen to contribute to NSPR or JS.
> Changing the MPL would also have potentially affected developers who
> had adopted the MPL for use with their own code, independently of the
> Mozilla project. If those developers did not like the new MPL changes
> then they would have to explicitly use an older version of the MPL, or
> create their own MPL-based license.
We can't know, if other projects would object, if we don't know, which
terms are those. I don't think, any project would object the removal of
the jurisdiction clause. In fact, it will probably help some (OpenH323
for example).
As I mentioned, the GPL incompatibility is a problem for other projects,
too. They now have to go through the same hassle as we do.
> Finally, changing the MPL would have required re-submitting it to the
> Open Source Initiative <http://www.opensource.org/> for certification
> in connection with the Open Source Definition
> <http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html> , another potentially
> time-consuming process.
That's bogus. The mail I quoted also says that FSF and OSI were quick to
respond on the new Python license.
