On 2010-03-10, at 5:04 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 3/10/10 4:52 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:Right. I think that people actively involved in drafting a specific license, with specific goals, will not necessarily line up with all of the goals of the projects under mozilla.org's umbrella. If (in theory) moving away from the MPL in the future is the right thing for some parts of the project, that is an entirely separate discussion from how the MPL itself evolves.
>> On 3/10/10 4:26 PM, Mike Connor wrote:
>>> On 2010-03-10, at 4:21 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/10 4:11 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>>>> Mozilla Public License Module
>>>>> -- changes in the legal landscape which could /should be reflected
>>>> Would it make sense to add ownership of
>>> I would argue strongly that "what we allow projects in Mozilla to use"
>>> -- Mike
>> Interesting. My rationale was going to be different -- I have not been
>> Maybe this should be included as a policy document, so a sub-module of
>> mconnor, this is different that the idea that the same owner is
> Not to put words in mconnor's mouth, but I agreed with him readily because it seems to make sense to have some deliberation and arms length separation between 'what the license is' and 'how the license is used.' If nothing else, that other module owner is a nice sanity check on the owner of the MPL.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.