All Mozilla projects (the major ones at least, I didn't check them all up) are licensed under the Mozilla Public License, version 1.1. It's already over a decade old, and the Mozilla Foundation believes it is time to overhaul the license, with a focus on modernising what they believe to be outdated wording.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-11-14
However, some of its wording may be showing its age. Keeping both those things in mind, Mozilla is launching a process to update the license, hoping to modernize and simplify it while still keeping the things that have made the license and the Mozilla project such a success.
what wording shows its age?
what things made the license a success?
what wording proved to be problematic and in need of change?
can they be a little bit more specific? There is not that much to talk about here without any specifics
Member since:2009-12-14
Member since:2005-07-06
This is all explained in detail
http://mpl.mozilla.org/faq/
http://mpl.mozilla.org/scope/
Member since:2005-07-06
That is a very naive view of how the different communities work and even FSF realizes this. RMS has encouraged the use of MIT license in the case of libogg and FSF also created LGPL license.
The licenses that really do matter are MIT/ revised BSD, Apache 2, GPL and LGPL with other licenses having smaller but in case significant communities.
Member since:2005-07-06
I think GPLv3 or LGPLv3 would be worth considering.
However it is clear from the below link that a change of licence is out of scope:
http://mpl.mozilla.org/scope/
Member since:2005-07-06
Yes. An important difference is that while MPL is a copyleft style license, it is file based. So if modify a particular file, you will have to publish your changes on distribution but other files can be licensed differently.
MPL is incompatible with GPL or LGPL however and Mozilla solves this problem by tri-licensing all its source under these licenses.
