James, I agree with the problems you've noted with MPL 1.1.
For most practical purposes, the Open Software License (OSL) accomplishes most of what MPL 1.1 does -- without those problems you mentioned. The major difference is that MPL 1.1 applies on a file-by-file basis and the OSL deals consistently with "derivative works," but I never understood the importance of a file-by-file license anyway in most typical software. /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: James E. Harrell, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 7:52 PM > To: David Johnson; Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group > Subject: RE: Procedure for using an approved license > > > Open Source friends, > > I've been looking at MPL 1.1 as well. One of the reasons I > would replace the word "Netscape" with my own company name is #6.2: > > >6.2. Effect of New Versions. > >Once Covered Code has been published under a particular > version of the > >License, You may always continue to use it under the terms of that > >version. You may also choose to use such Covered Code under > the terms > >of any subsequent version of the License published by > Netscape. No one > >other than Netscape has the right to modify the terms applicable > >to Covered Code created under this License. > > The last sentence is a difficult one for me- why would I ever want > *Netscape* > to be able to supplant this license with what they deem to be > another "better" version? That version might say "All covered > code automatically becomes the sole property of Netscape > corporation..." Not suggesting that they would, but... > > Further, if I take this license to legal review and finally > do find it to be acceptable for my product, what happens when > MPL 1.2 comes out? The legal review is then pointless (or at > least has to be re-done); but worse, if I don't like the > terms of MPL 1.2, now I have a product that is licensed under > terms that I don't find acceptable- and I have now way to > keep you from using it under the terms of MPL 1.2. > > Now, give that MPL 1.1 is probably one of the most suitable > licenses for commercial Open Source products... but there are > some minor things that might not be acceptable for our > lawyers... does that mean it's time to try another one > specifically geared to Open Source commercial products that > solves the templating problem (and maybe some others?) > > -- OR -- > > Perhaps someone can really address the question that Dave > asked- or maybe really my re-phrase of the original question: > > Is this *a* correct procedure? (I change "the" to "a") > Given this procedure, is this license automatically 'OSI certified'? > > > *NOTE* MPL 1.2 is solely used in conjecture for the purposes > of this email! > > > > Thanks for help understanding this too! > James > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:03 PM > >To: Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group > >Subject: Re: Procedure for using an approved license > > > > > >On Sunday 06 October 2002 02:10 pm, Dave Nelson wrote: > >> I wish to use the Mozilla 1.1 license, but don't know the exact > >> procedures here. > >> > >> I copied the Mozilla 1.1 license from your site, replace > 'Netscape' > >> with my company, and 'Mozilla' with my product, and Netscape > >> trademarks with mine. No other changes were made. Then > added a line > >> under the title > >> stating: > > > >You did too much unnecessary work. The MPL is sufficiently > >"templatized" that you don't need to do all this. > > > >You only need to change the words "Mozilla" and "Netscape" > if you make > >a derivative license of the MPL. This does not seem to be > your intent. > > > >Far simpler: Just fill in EXHIBIT A with your name, > software, etc., and > >you are done! > > > >You *do* want to keep the name "Mozilla Public License", > because people > >already know what it is and what rights it confers. Changing > the name > >will only cause confusion. > > > >-- > >David Johnson > >___________________ > >http://www.usermode.org > >pgp public key on website > >-- > >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > > > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3