Subject: Re: For Approval: CDDL - license stewardship
From: Mitchell Baker <Mitchell@mozilla.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:46:52 -0800

Also, the license steward for the MPL is now the Mozilla Foundation, not 
Netscape Communications Corp.  This change was made as part of the 
agreements relating to the Mozilla Foundation.

I don't want to derail Russ' points below, which are great topics for 
discussion.  I'll address getting the MPL changed to reflect this 
separately. 

Mitchell

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?"
>
>  
>