Re: Was MPL under consideration of good licenses for PEAR?

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

Axel Hecht wrote:

Hi all, we Mozillians want to start out on a project with a php implementation, and would like to pick a license that is both good for PEAR/PECL and for us. I have found http://pear.php.net/manual/en/faq.devs.php#faq.licenses, which mentions BSD and MIT, which we could go for, though Mitchell Baker mourned the lack of patent protection therein, compared to the MPL. Thus, before we do stuff that nobody wants to revert, was the MPL discussed yet? If, or if not, what was the outcome, or if not, would you consider looking into it? Having glanced through the recent posting, I guess that a new decision on the MPL would likely have to wait for the elections, am I right there?

Hello, The best course of action seems to be to wait for the election to end and the pear-group to be in place. This should happen relatively quickly. I would suggest you write to the group once in place.

Since I was part of the original decision, I can comment on what was considered. Mozilla on the list prior to the PEAR Group decision to drastically reduce the list. Basically we wanted todo two things with the change: 1) ensure that all licenses allow commercial use 2) reduce the number of licenses PEAR users need to understand Considering that since then I do not remember anyone else asking for MPL, I guess we made a pretty good choice. However getting the Mozilla project to contribute is obviously quite attractive, though you did mention you could live with the BSD/MIT licenses.

I've found the Creative Commons licenses to be quite useful. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Beckman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Beckman                                                  Internet Guy
beckman@purplecow.com                             http://www.purplecow.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------