W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [Licensing] Request to evaluate candidate HTML Document license (known as "Option 3")

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 18:54:36 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <746B06A2-AECA-4322-AE68-5DA1FDA09DB3@gbiv.com>
To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 04/04/11 05:35, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> Please note that the Mozilla Public License is limited to Software
>> (Covered Code).
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that statement, but perhaps some of the following will help:
> 
> - The Mozilla Public License can be used for things other than
>  software, including but not limited to documentation

It can be used for the same things that the Option 3 PSIG
additional license can be used for.  Both are equally valid
licenses that fit the open source definition, hence what you
wrote about software being a field of use restriction is false.

> - The Mozilla Project uses the MPL for a variety of things
> - Mozilla project code is also available under other licenses than the
>  MPL, which affects what external code we can include
> - If a file is under the MPL, all of it is under the MPL, comments
>  included
> - Mozilla's interest in this subject goes beyond "can we put bits of
>  the spec in our code?"

The MPL defines what it can be used for.  That does not stop
people misusing it for other things for which the license does not
provide sufficient permissions. In most cases, it doesn't
matter, since nobody expects Mozilla to care about the finer
distinctions in its own license definitions when it is
deliberately trying to give those permissions away.

>> My opinion is that the above does not represent
>> Mozilla's opinion in any meaningful sense,  unless MPL has been
>> abandoned recently.  Have you asked Mitchell Baker?
> 
> It represents our opinion in the sense that I am empowered to speak for Mozilla in this matter, having discussed it with the relevant Mozilla community members, and that my statement is in concord with the opinion of our lawyer (who is not Mitchell). I hope that is sufficiently representative for you.

Thanks, Boris cleared that up nicely.  I do hope that your
lawyer intends to participate in the PSIG discussion so that
we don't have to go through this over and over and over again.

....Roy
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2011 01:55:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:27 GMT