On review, I think the Open Software License is more like the GPL in scope than it is the MPL.
Larry notes that the OSL applies to derivative works rather than files. This means that all the complexities of defining a derivative work are reflected in the license. It's not that easy to know precisely what is and isn't a derivative work. One would think it would be, but the case law is complex. Last I researched this, the exact tests used to determine whether something is a derivative work varied by judicial circuit in this U.S. Also, I'm not sure if a derivative work under U.S. law is exactly the same as under European law, or of the mechanisms by which international treaty deals with this, if at all.
Even more importantly, many entities do not want derivative works to be governed by the GPL, MPL or OSL. Assume someone takes JavaScript and incorporates it into a product. That product may well be a derivative work. Yet the creator of that work may not want the entire work to be governed by the OSL, MPL or GPL. In fact, there are a ton of projects and products that use JavaScript and I'm sure many of them have no intention of converting the entire project or product to open source. (Maybe we'd like them to, but the MPL is explicitly designed to allow authors to decide if and when their original work moves into the open source/free software world.)
So I suspect there are many developers who are content with the MPL but would not be with the OSL.
In general, the relative simplicity of the OSL is appealing. But some of the additional topics in the MPL seem important to me. For example, Sections 3.6 and 3.7 make it clear once the source availability requirements for MPL code have been meet, projects and companies are welcome to combine MPL code with other code, and to distribute that combined work under an End User License Agreement that differs from the MPL. I'm not sure what the OSL envisions here, and it feels closer to the GPL model. The explicit language in the MPL makes MPL code much easier for many projects to use.
The OSL is indeed reinforcing my view that the MPL should be revised again and simplified. I don't see the OSL as taking its place.
Larry, can you explain the thinking behind the warranty in the OSL?
I'll be traveling with probably limited access for the next week, so may not be able to respond right away.
Mitchell
Mitchell Baker wrote:
I had never really thought of the Open Software License as a practical alternative for the MPL. I'll certainly reread it carefully with that in mind.
The MPL's file based system was used so that people working with the code, particularly programmers, could automatically and accurately understand the scope of the license. Programmers know a file when they see one. They don't necessarily know a derivative work when they see one. And neither do lawyers. Last time I did serious research into this topic, the determination of derivative work and copyright infringement varied according to which part of the country (and which judicial Circuit) one referred to. Sounds wild, but different Federal Circuits often use different tests. So we opted for something firmly based in the programming world.
Mitchell
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
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:jharrell@;copernicusllc.com] 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.version of the
Once Covered Code has been published under a particular
License, You may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Covered Code underthe terms
of any subsequent version of the License published byNetscape. No one
other than Netscape has the right to modify the terms applicableThe last sentence is a difficult one for me- why would I ever want
to Covered Code created under this License.
*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-----'Netscape'
From: David Johnson [mailto:david@;usermode.org]
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
added a linewith my company, and 'Mozilla' with my product, and Netscape trademarks with mine. No other changes were made. Then
if you makeunder the titleYou did too much unnecessary work. The MPL is sufficiently "templatized" that you don't need to do all this.
stating:
You only need to change the words "Mozilla" and "Netscape"
a derivative license of the MPL. This does not seem to beyour intent.
Far simpler: Just fill in EXHIBIT A with your name,software, etc., and
you are done!because people
You *do* want to keep the name "Mozilla Public License",
already know what it is and what rights it confers. Changingthe 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
-- 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
