>>> On 2010-03-10, at 4:21 PM, Luis Villa wrote:

>>>> On 3/10/10 4:11 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>>>> Here;s the text I'm planning to use (comments welcome)

>>>>> Mozilla Public License Module
>>>>> • owner: Mitchell Baker
>>>>> • peers: (TBD)
>>>>> • newsgroup: mozilla.governance governance-mpl-update (at least during
>>>>> the process of updating the MPL 11)
>>>>> • scope: project-wide, and affects other projects using the MPL
>>>>> • responsibilities: maintenance and development of the MPL

>>>>> -- changes in the legal landscape which could /should be reflected
>>>>> -- changes in FLOSS development practices which could / should be
>>>>> reflected

>>>> Would it make sense to add ownership of
>>>> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html to this module as
>>>> well? I don't think they've been tied together historically in the
>>>> past, so it might not make sense, but they are fairly related
>>>> documents and areas of interest.

>>> I would argue strongly that "what we allow projects in Mozilla to use"
>>> and "what the MPL does" should not be tied together. I think that they
>>> inform each other, but having the people who control a license have
>>> control over the pan-project policy around allowable licenses feels
>>> like a dangerous path.

>>> -- Mike

>> Interesting. My rationale was going to be different -- I have not been
>> actively involved with the license-policy.html page for a number of
>> years, so someone other than I has been acting as owner of that policy.

>> Maybe this should be included as a policy document, so a sub-module of
>> Governance, as we treat the security or commit access or CA policy? that
>> sounds right to me.

>> mconnor, this is different that the idea that the same owner is
>> dangerous. Why do you think that? I think the licensing policy page is
>> our view of what licenses are compatible with MPL, what other licenses
>> are OK for non product code, etc. (I'm not saying this because I want to
>> own the license-policy; I am exceedingly happy to hae it maintained
>> without my direct involvement.)

> 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.