MPL vs. Other Open Source Licenses
Greg Marine
great software. I've released source code of my applications in the
past under the dual license of MPL and GPL. I've recently moved to a
BSD style license. However, in light of my desire to spread the word
about Mozilla, would the MPL be a good license to stick with? Either
way, I do plan to drop the GPL.
Thanks for your input!
Greg
Benjamin Smedberg
Either MPL or BSD would be fine. I personally prefer BSD-style licenses, but
they are both compatible with the Mozilla codebase.
--BDS
Sergey Yanovich
> Either way, I do plan to drop the GPL.
Could I ask why?
If you don't provide GPL as an option, you effectively prevent your
platform clients from linking with any GPLed code. IMHO, this won't add
up to spreading the code.
Public domain (and BSD-style-license also, probably) code is an
exception to the above, since it can be freely distributed to satisfy
GPL. However, MPL doesn't seem to be GPL compatible.
--
Sergey Yanovich
Greg Marine
> > Either way, I do plan to drop the GPL.
>
> Could I ask why?
Yes. I just don't completely agree with the direction GNU is taking
with the GPL.
> If you don't provide GPL as an option, you effectively prevent your
> platform clients from linking with any GPLed code. IMHO, this won't add
> up to spreading the code.
I agree. So...
> Public domain (and BSD-style-license also, probably) code is an
> exception to the above, since it can be freely distributed to satisfy
> GPL.
I think I'll stick with BSD-style.
I'm personally glad I asked this question. I appreciate the input
given.
Regards,
Greg
Sergey Yanovich
> I think I'll stick with BSD-style.
A small inconvenience is that you'll need to explain the license issue
at length, if you plan to ship you platform with Mozilla source code in
one package, because Mozilla source code cannot be distributed under a
BSD-style license.
A side note on BSD v. GPL: the latter is the single reason why Linux is
some much more widely used than FreeBSD, or MySQL than PostGRE.
--
Sergey Yanovich
Greg Marine
> A small inconvenience is that you'll need to explain the license issue
> at length, if you plan to ship you platform with Mozilla source code in
> one package, because Mozilla source code cannot be distributed under a
> BSD-style license.
I'm not distributing Mozilla code. Just XULRunner as a runtime.
Thanks,
Greg
Benjamin Smedberg
> On 2008-12-06 04:32, Greg Marine wrote:
>> I think I'll stick with BSD-style.
>
> A small inconvenience is that you'll need to explain the license issue
> at length, if you plan to ship you platform with Mozilla source code in
> one package, because Mozilla source code cannot be distributed under a
> BSD-style license.
This paragraph is either confusing or wrong.
There is nothing that prevent shipping Mozilla code (MPL/LGPL/GPL
tri-license) and BSD-licensed code in the same package. In fact, the Mozilla
source distribution contains plenty of BSD-licensed code.
No complicated explanation of license terms is necessary.
--BDS
Sergey Yanovich
> There is nothing that prevent shipping Mozilla code (MPL/LGPL/GPL
> tri-license) and BSD-licensed code in the same package.
I never said this is not possible.
> No complicated explanation of license terms is necessary.
It may not be required outright, but this is a high priority homework to
do before releasing anything. It is true that Mozilla source code
licenses are diverse. If someone is interested in details, 'copyright'
file found in Debian packages (36180 bytes) is the most detailed
exploration I know.
Back to the point, Greg says they distribute XULRunner inside their
package. They have all the rights to do that, but if they need to
describe their license, it cannot be *just* 'BSD'. They cannot claim
they distribute a BSD XULRunner. So they need to say something like 'BSD
for our code + Mozilla tri-license for Mozilla code'. On contrast, I
just say 'GPL'.
This comment is posted in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
ANY WARRANTY to the extent permitted by law; without even the implied
warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
--
Sergey Yanovich
Greg Marine
> Back to the point, Greg says they distribute XULRunner inside their
> package. They have all the rights to do that, but if they need to
> describe their license, it cannot be *just* 'BSD'. They cannot claim
> they distribute a BSD XULRunner. So they need to say something like 'BSD
> for our code + Mozilla tri-license for Mozilla code'. On contrast, I
> just say 'GPL'.
The distributable XULRunner binary files come with there own license
file. If I need to display that file, I have no problem with that. I'm
also going to use the "Powered by Mozilla" logo to proudly show my
support of the Mozilla Platform (I was given permission to do this).
I'm not claiming to distribute a BSD XULRunner. Nor will I ever do
that.
Thanks,
Greg
Gervase Markham
Using the MPL doesn't really spread the word about Mozilla in any
significant sense. As the MPL is incompatible with certain other free
software licences, if you want your software to be used in as many
different contexts as possible, you should use a standard new-BSD licence.
Gerv
Greg Marine
> Using the MPL doesn't really spread the word about Mozilla in any
> significant sense. As the MPL is incompatible with certain other free
> software licences, if you want your software to be used in as many
> different contexts as possible, you should use a standard new-BSD licence.
>
> Gerv
Thank you, Gerv. I appreciate your advice. I'll be sticking with the
BSD license. It seems to make the most sense.
Thanks,
Greg