last call for MPL comments

[Luis Villa]

This is the last call for MPL comments; we expect to finalize in the
next few days. Someone added a dozen or so comments this weekend to
the comment text this weekend; two of those comments will lead to
minor changes in the last version of the license, as will Benoit's
earlier questions on this list, so this is not a "fake" call- your
comments can still make a difference. That said, only absolutely
showstoppers (spelling, grammar, massive legal incorrectness) will be
considered at this point.

Please do eyeball it one more time- texts at:

http://mpl.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MPL-RC2.html
http://mpl.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MPL-RC2.txt

To provide last feedback, please email me, the list, or add comments
at https://mpl.co-ment.com/text/gTme7JLYRbc/view/

Thanks-
Luis

[Michael Kay]

Looks good. One little quibble: the adjective "Licensable" is used
twice, to describe a right (patent or trademark) that may be granted by
a Contributor. That doesn't match the definition "having the right to
grant", which makes it a property of the person doing the granting.

I don't know how to rewrite it - sorry! Something like "A right is
Licensable by a Contributor if the Contributor is entitled to grant the
right to others, either at the time of the initial grant or subsequently".

(But the more I stare at it the more I go crazy. Surely "any and all"
means "any or all"?)

Michael Kay
Saxonica

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

[Luis Villa]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Michael Kay <mi...@saxonica.com> wrote:
> Looks good. One little quibble: the adjective "Licensable" is used twice, to
> describe a right (patent or trademark) that may be granted by a Contributor.
> That doesn't match the definition "having the right to grant", which makes
> it a property of the person doing the granting.

Interesting catch. That has been there since 1.1, with no one
previously noticing it, so I'm thinking we'll be inclined to leave it
there. But we'll ponder it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Luis

[Bob Jolliffe]

On Nov 30, 5:52 pm, Luis Villa <l...@tieguy.org> wrote:
> This is the last call for MPL comments; we expect to finalize in the
> next few days. Someone added a dozen or so comments this weekend to
> the comment text this weekend; two of those comments will lead to
> minor changes in the last version of the license, as will Benoit's
> earlier questions on this list, so this is not a "fake" call- your
> comments can still make a difference. That said, only absolutely
> showstoppers (spelling, grammar, massive legal incorrectness) will be
> considered at this point.

The text looks good to me and I have failed to turn up any obvious
problems or errors.

I'm particularly appreciative of the removal of sections 11 and 12
from the original licence. The replacement of section 12 with the
text of section 8, which is not biased towards any particular
jurisdiction, is particularly important for software which is
developed outside of the United States. I am not suggesting any
change to the current proposed formulation, which I think is good, but
would appreciate any pointers to the discussion which provided the
rationale for this particular outcome from the various proposals which
were circulating in 2010.

Regards
Bob Jolliffe

>
> Please do eyeball it one more time- texts at:
>

> http://mpl.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MPL-RC2.htmlhttp://mpl.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MPL-RC2.txt

[Luis Villa]

Thanks, Bob- good to hear that these changes have had the intended
effect. Much appreciated.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Bob Jolliffe <bobjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 5:52 pm, Luis Villa <l...@tieguy.org> wrote:

>> This is the last call for MPL comments; we expect to finalize in the
>> next few days. Someone added a dozen or so comments this weekend to
>> the comment text this weekend; two of those comments will lead to
>> minor changes in the last version of the license, as will Benoit's
>> earlier questions on this list, so this is not a "fake" call- your
>> comments can still make a difference. That said, only absolutely
>> showstoppers (spelling, grammar, massive legal incorrectness) will be
>> considered at this point.
>

> The text looks good to me and I have failed to turn up any obvious
> problems or errors.
>
> I'm particularly appreciative of the removal of sections 11 and 12
> from the original licence.   The replacement of section 12 with the
> text of section 8, which is not biased towards any particular
> jurisdiction, is particularly important for software which is
> developed outside of the United States.  I am not suggesting any
> change to the current proposed formulation, which I think is good, but
> would appreciate any pointers to the discussion which provided the
> rationale for this particular outcome from the various proposals which
> were circulating in 2010.
>
> Regards
> Bob Jolliffe
>
>>

>> Please do eyeball it one more time- texts at:
>>

>> http://mpl.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MPL-RC2.htmlhttp://mpl.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MPL-RC2.txt

>>
>> To provide last feedback, please email me, the list, or add comments

>> athttps://mpl.co-ment.com/text/gTme7JLYRbc/view/

[Norv]

Thank you for the work on this version. I have found out about only
recently, and I am very glad it is close to release. I was just
looking to license under MPL 1.1, I guess I can wait a bit,
instead. :)

It must not very been easy to address GPL compatibility with a bit of
grace, and yet you seem to have managed to.

It is important from my perspective, that the code can have the
possibility to preserve all the rights given by Mozilla license alone
down the line, and I appreciate the work that has been done to still
address in some way different wishes. I found the mailing lists really
useful in clarifying questions related to this subject, questions that
one might have expected in the FAQ, such as the exact mechanism by
which one can lose the rights to combine the MPL covered code with
proprietary software... which is instructive. Speaking of which,
though, I doubt it's so hard for one to create another user account
somewhere and make a double submission to remove the MPL protection...
but I think it feels a little cheesy. Interesting enough, it might
lead me to care a little less about someone "decided" enough to use
such tricks. :)

Just to be sure I understand correctly the upcoming process and
further needs... I suppose the next step after release is for FSF to
accept Mozilla 2.0 as compatible?