Subject: Re: For Approval: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
From: Russell Nelson <>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:57:21 -0500

Mitchell Baker writes:
 > But to assume that because some of  Sun's  partners want different 
 > terms doesn't mean that the MPL is seriously flawed.

This isn't about Sun.  It's about the fact that we've had several
licenses submitted and approved which are exactly the MPL with
"Mozilla" filed off and replaced by the product being licensed.  It's
quite possible that Sun would be willing to use a MPL 1.2 that had
"Mozilla" filed off and replaced by "Software Product" or whatever
generic term is appropriate.  I can say for sure that nobody but
Mozilla can use the MPL as written and approved.

That may be the only thing wrong with the MPL, but it rules out the
MPL from being a reusable license.  That is, in my book, a serious
flaw.  We can't recommend that people use the MPL because in order to
do so, they have to submit a new license for approval.  Along comes
the CDDL which is based on the MPL, but which is a reusable license
plus XYZ.  XYZ comprises some changes equivalent to running code
through 'indent' plus some other significant changes.

 > This rush to judgment is extraordinary to me.

Not to me.  I think it's caused by people saying "reusable better than
possible negative effects of XYZ".  That's an ordinary judgement for
people to make, not extraordinary.  They make such a judgement every
time they get in their car: "shorter trip better than possible loss of
life, limb, and property".

--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.