Presenting new license: KPL

[Ben Bucksch]

I'd like to present a new license. It's the "Kermit Public License".
The terms are identical with the MPL 1.1, the only difference being that
only Kermit can update the license. That's already the definition of the
license.

I have used that in some source code in the past. I'd like mozilla.org
to approve this as license allowed to Mozilla source code.

Note: The KPL is not to be confused with the C-Kermit license
<http://gentoo.kems.net/gentoo-portage/licenses/Kermit>.

[Mike Connor]

Aside from this being the wrong group, I get the impression you're
trolling.

If you have real concerns about the MPL being a license that can be
updated by the Foundation, I think you should come out and make an
straightforward argument to that effect.

-- Mike

> _______________________________________________
> governance-mpl-update mailing list
> governance...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance-mpl-update

[Gervase Markham]

On 06/11/10 19:19, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> I'd like to present a new license. It's the "Kermit Public License". The
> terms are identical with the MPL 1.1, the only difference being that
> only Kermit can update the license. That's already the definition of the
> license.

Kermit the Frog?

> I have used that in some source code in the past. I'd like mozilla.org
> to approve this as license allowed to Mozilla source code.

Let's say we say No. What is your response?

(But I agree with Mike - you seem very much to be trolling. Which is not
in character for you. If you have a point, come out and make it.)

Gerv

[Luis Villa]

On 11/8/10 8:27 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 06/11/10 19:19, Ben Bucksch wrote:

>> I'd like to present a new license. It's the "Kermit Public License". The
>> terms are identical with the MPL 1.1, the only difference being that
>> only Kermit can update the license. That's already the definition of the
>> license.
>

> Kermit the Frog?

>
>> I have used that in some source code in the past. I'd like mozilla.org
>> to approve this as license allowed to Mozilla source code.
>

> Let's say we say No. What is your response?
>
> (But I agree with Mike - you seem very much to be trolling. Which is not
> in character for you. If you have a point, come out and make it.)

Mike was also right that this is off-topic for this list. If you have
specific objections to the license which might make it unsuitable for
use by any project (including, but not limited to, Mozilla) then I'd
love to hear about them here, so that we can try to address them before
we release the license. But discussions of what licenses Mozilla will
use, how Mozilla should pick a license, etc., are mostly off-topic here;
governance@ will have a thorough discussion of the Mozilla project's
policy when the time is right.

Luis

--
Luis Villa, Mozilla Legal
work email: lvi...@mozilla.com (preferred)
work phone: 650-903-0800 x327
personal: http://tieguy.org/about/

[Robert Kaiser]

Ben Bucksch schrieb:

> I'd like to present a new license. It's the "Kermit Public License". The
> terms are identical with the MPL 1.1, the only difference being that
> only Kermit can update the license. That's already the definition of the
> license.

If you mean Kermit The Frog, he is owned by Disney nowadays. So you want
Disney to be able to do anything they want with the license? I feel more
comfortable having a non-profit foundation with a clear
for-the-public-good mission handling license updates than a for-profit
media company (or a fictional character in their possession).

Also, I would not agree with having any non-OSI-recognized license
allowed for Mozilla code. Or did you have OSI approve this license?

Robert Kaiser

--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time,
I even appreciate irony and fun! :)