[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-license
Subject:    Re: MPL-1.1 Section 6.2
From:       "Keepiru" <pan () vega ! fur ! com>
Date:       2003-04-18 10:29:43
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:02:37 +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> You have misread the license, then :-)
> 
> Section 6.2 ("Effect of New Versions"):
> 
> "You may also choose to use such Covered Code under the terms of any
> subsequent version of the License published by Netscape."

OK, I've reread it several times, and I still disagree.  6.2 allows you to
use the code under the terms of MPL-1.1, or under a future version of the
license, but *does not* allow actual relicensing.  As per my
understanding, here's what MPL-1.1 allows you to do, by section:

1) Understand the terminology.
2) Share and Enjoy for Free.
3) Include the source. (Also covers Larger Works.)
4) Lawyers like to make licenses fail gracefully.
5) Look for Exhibit A.
6) New versions of this license may be published by Netscape.
7) ALL YOUR DATA LOSS PROBLEMS ARE BELONG TO SOMEONE ELSE.
8) You have 30 days to comply or this license will self-destruct.
9) GO LAWSUIT SOMEONE ELSE.
10) This program is "Government Compliant" and we have "Documentation
    to prove it".
11) You get nothing else.  Sue us in California if you must.
12) Distribution of responsibility
13) We allow multi-licensing.
Exhibit A) Cut'n'paste to apply.

None of these terms - including 6.2 - includes "relicensing the software"
for anyone.  6.2 allows you to "choose to use such Covered Code under the
terms of any subsequent version of the License".  I believe this is
fundimentally different.  When you use it under the terms of the
"subsequent version" you are not "Relicensing it for yourself with the new
version" - you are in essence STILL using it under MPL-1.1, which BY PROXY
allows MPL-1.2 to be used.

Also, here's something for the Mozilla Relicensing FAQ
( http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html ):  "As it happens, for
source files licensed under the NPL Section V.3 of the NPL ("Alternative
Licensing") allows Netscape and now AOL Time Warner to relicense those
files..."

And here's the NPL-1.0 Amendment V.3: "Netscape may license the Source
Code of Netscape's Branded Code, including Modifications incorporated
therein, without such additional products becoming subject to the terms of
this License, and may license such additional products on different terms
from those contained in this License."

So, the NPL specifically *did* allow relicensing, but it was through
Amendment V.3, not through Section 6.2.  These terms are not present in
the MPL.  While this doesn't preclude the possibility that 6.2 also allows
automatic relicensing, it does imply it.


> No. If 1.2 is released, and mozilla.org chooses to update the license
> headers in our copy of the code to 1.2 (which it can - see above quote),
> then any changes checked in to mozilla.org from then on are under 1.2
> only.
>
> People could still use pre-change versions of the software under the old
> license, and even fork it if they wanted to from that point.
>
>> To change the boilerplate, you must go to the individual contributors.
> 
> There's the flaw in your logic. Reread section 6.2. :-)

I have, and I am content to agree to disagree.  :-)

Regardless, this is a tangent from my original question.  My original
question is why any of this (either my interpretation our yours) would
change if the "under the terms of any subsequent version" bit were put
into the boilerplate, instead of the actual license.

By the way, thanks for taking the time to reply to all of this.  I know
I'm making a big deal out of a fine point here, but since it looks like
I'm going to be drafting up my own new license that handles this the way I
want it (specifically, putting the future-compatibility in the
boilerplate), this input really is valuable to me.  I want to really
understand the part I have a problem with before I go mucking about with
it.

--Kai


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]