Proposing a Licensing Policy Module
Gervase Markham
propose this.
The goal of the Licensing Policy module is to maintain this document in
a form useful to the project:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html"
This document defines what licences are acceptable under what
circumstances for code stored in the Mozilla project SCM repositories.
Those with check-in access must make sure code checked in complies with it.
Here's the formal statement:
Licensing Policy Module
• owner: Gervase Markham
• peers:
• newsgroup: mozilla.legal
• scope: project-wide
• responsibilities: maintain, enforce and explain Mozilla project
licensing policies.
Gerv
Mitchell Baker
I see I was confusing 2 things in my mind. One is determining licensing
policy for the Mozilla project -- in what cases do we require MPL?
tri-license? when is a license with no copyleft, or a public domain
decaration OK? public domain?
Another task is taking these decisions and converting them into a useful
document like that Gerv has been maintaining at
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html"
The role i had in mind was the latter. We probably should determine who
should be involved in the first questions, but I was trying to make it
clear Gerv is maintaining the official description of the policy.
I see that I caused this confusion- it other cases we have a policy
owneer, and simply reference the govering document. Here I was thinking
only of the doc.
Not quite sure what to do here.
mitchell
Gervase Markham
> I see I was confusing 2 things in my mind. One is determining licensing
> policy for the Mozilla project -- in what cases do we require MPL?
> tri-license? when is a license with no copyleft, or a public domain
> decaration OK? public domain?
>
> Another task is taking these decisions and converting them into a useful
> document like that Gerv has been maintaining at
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html"
>
> The role i had in mind was the latter. We probably should determine who
> should be involved in the first questions, but I was trying to make it
> clear Gerv is maintaining the official description of the policy.
In the past, I have de facto done the former as well, but I am entirely
happy for that role to become the task of a larger group of people.
> Not quite sure what to do here.
Perhaps: work out who that group of people is and who leads it, make
them the module owner and, if the module owner isn't me, make me a peer
as someone involved and also responsible for maintaining the doc?
Gerv
Robert Kaiser
> In the past, I have de facto done the former as well, but I am entirely
> happy for that role to become the task of a larger group of people.
Well, "a larger group of people" is usually not good as an "owner", as
IMHO, the owner should be a single instance that can sort out the hard
decisions a committee can't figure out clearly. Of course, the larger
group that is probably "peers" in Mozilla-speak, should discuss and
agree as well as possible, but from what I see from Mozilla history, it
has served us well to have a single person being the last instance and
formally "owning" an area/module in the project.
Robert Kaiser
Mitchell Baker
include shifting to a copyleft- free (or apache-style) license. I'm
sure that I'm the owner as to what the MPL itself becomes. The big
question would be: who's the owner of the decision as to what license
-- MPL, BSD, Apache -- the Mozilla project uses for our products?
I'm inclined to think that's me, if we're looking for a single owner.
It was at least in the choice to write and use the MPL years ago. I
won't be insulted if others believe that has changed and should be
someone else now. I may not agree, but won't be insulted or upset by
the idea -- it's a good topic for discussion.
mitchell
Gervase Markham
> Well, for example people have asked if the revision of the MPL might
> include shifting to a copyleft- free (or apache-style) license. I'm sure
> that I'm the owner as to what the MPL itself becomes. The big question
> would be: who's the owner of the decision as to what license -- MPL,
> BSD, Apache -- the Mozilla project uses for our products?
>
> I'm inclined to think that's me, if we're looking for a single owner.
I agree that if we are asking "do we change what licence we use by
default for our code", then you are the person to say. But that's a
slightly different question from your earlier, to which I said "that's me":
> One is determining licensing policy for the Mozilla project -- in
> what cases do we require MPL? tri-license? when is a license with no
> copyleft, or a public domain decaration OK? public domain?
Questions I have been asked, and answered, in the past few years which
fall into this second description are things like:
- What licence should we use for code samples on MDC?
- Should we licence our PHP website code under the tri-license, or is
BSD OK?
- Can we please have a minimal-boilerplate public domain option added
to the licensing policy, for use in short test scripts?
My answers to these questions have been guided by statements from
mitchell in the past, but I've been taking the principles outlined and
applying them in practice. In consultation, of course, with our legal team.
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> I'd also like to propose a new module. :-) Mitchell has requested that I
> propose this.
Mitchell: how do you want to proceed here? Options are:
- Approve the existing proposal
- Change the scope/name of the module, and still have me as the owner
- Keep the scope/name of the module but decide I'm not the right owner
:-)
Gerv