Subject: Re: For Approval: CDDL - license stewardship
From: Ernest Prabhakar <>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:52:34 -0800

Um, I'm confused.  These seem to be two totally different issues.   I 
agree that there would be value in something like the MPL with more 
neutral (or template-able) ownership terms.  (Isn't that what the 
Common Public License and the OSL purport to be?).   But, it seems 
obvious to me that the CDDL has much more going on (e.g., peculiar 
patent issues) than just that, so I think it unfair to read Sun's use 
of the CDDL as a specific slam against the MPL (or GPL, as some in the 
press have made it).

-- Ernie P.
TINA, MLLA (This is not advice, much less legal advice)

On Dec 15, 2004, at 7:19 AM, Russell Nelson wrote:

> I want to start a new thread because I'm changing the subject.  And
> yet it has to do with the CDDL approval process, hence the precise
> composition of the subject.
> The CDDL folks (Claire and Andrew) have raised a interesting point
> with their use of the term 'license steward'.  Both the MPL and the
> CDDL each state that you may re-license under subsequent versions.
> The MPL names Netscape Communications Corporation as the author of new
> versions, and the CDDL names Sun Microsystems.
> So, why have we had so many re-submissions of the MPL?  Because it's a
> good license that names Mozilla as a trademark you have no permission
> to use?  Because it's a good license that names California Law and
> Santa Clara County as venue?  Or because it's a good license that
> gives Netscape Communications Corporation permission to change the
> terms of the license?
> I want to be clear that I'm not judging the MPL based on my opinion of
> it.  I'm judging it by the fact that so many people have felt they had
> to change specific names in it.
> And then the next question to ask is "Is Sun submitting the CDDL as a
> separate license rather than as a revision to the MPL because they
> want to be license stewards?"  How should Netscape (and by implication
> the Mozilla Foundation and by implication Mitchell) feel about this?
> Does OSI want its powerhouse licenses to have outside stewards?  Or do
> we want "the best" licenses to be given over to us to be stewards?
> I've read the diffs between MPL and CDDL.  There is no change in
> intent.  There's changes in wording, which Mitchell has expressed a
> concern about, just as any programmer would be concerned if somebody
> else has recoded a module of theirs, keeping the same API.  "What was
> wrong with the old one?"  "Did you introduce any bugs?"
> -- 
> --My blog is at  | Freedom means 
> allowing
> Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | people to do things 
> the
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 cell  | majority thinks are
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 212-202-2318 VOIP  | stupid, e.g. take 
> drugs.