Re: MPL submitted to Open Source Initiative

[Benoit Jacob]

----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> > FYI for all of you who have contributed here: yesterday I submitted
> > an
> > "RC 3" (involving very minor changes from RC2) to the Open Source
> > Initiative for their approval. If you're interested, you can track
> > the
> > discussion via the license-review mailing list archives:
> >
> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2011-December/000001.html
> >
> > As you can imagine, this means we're wrapping up and hope to ship in
> > the very near future! Thanks so much to everyone here for their
> > input.
>
> Can I ask again about my remarks about section 1.7?
>
> Sorry if it's been replied to recently: with this week's mozilla.com
> mail outage, I may have missed something.
>
> My concern is that the current text doesn't make it clear if "separate
> file" in section 1.7 means separate in the Source form or separate in
> the Executable form. That's a problem because if it were interpreted
> as "separate in Executable form" then the MPL would prevent statically
> linking MPL'd libraries to proprietary applications.

Ping! Still waiting for an answer to this question.

Gervase's answer was a useful clarification of the intention of this section, but I would like the text of the license itself to be clarified, or an explanation of why this isn't needed (of why the ambiguity I thought I found, doesn't exist).

FYI, my FOSS project, Eigen (eigen.tuxfamily.org) is considering the possibility of relicensing to MPL2, we're very excited about this, a major potential user has said that they would use Eigen if we relicense to MPL2, but they agree that the current phrasing of section 1.7 seems ambiguous and would like it to be clarified too.

If you agree that a clarification is needed but it's too late to make it in MPL 2.0, will you schedule a MPL 2.1 release in the near future?

Cheers,
Benoit