Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
by the_why_of_y on Sunday June 14, 2015 @08:03AM
(#9714584)
I don't understand why Mozilla would need extra permissions to upgrade from the old tri-license to MPLv2?
The MPLv1 already had an auto-upgrade clause that allowed any downstream to use and distribute the code under a later version published by the license steward; the MPLv2 also is implicitly a triple-license with LGPL/GPL.
MPL v1.1 "6.2. Effect of New Versions" does mention the new version of the license has to be published by Netscape instead of the Mozilla Foundation; was that the issue perhaps?
This page seems to agree with my reasoning in "Does Mozilla need permission from anyone to change the MPL?"
"No permission is needed from any contributor to upgrade the codebase from MPL 1.1 to MPL 2 because the MPL 1.1 contains within itself a provision which allows software under 1.1 to be redistributed under a later version of the licence."
The MPLv1 already had an auto-upgrade clause that allowed any downstream to use and distribute the code under a later version published by the license steward; the MPLv2 also is implicitly a triple-license with LGPL/GPL.
MPL v1.1 "6.2. Effect of New Versions" does mention the new version of the license has to be published by Netscape instead of the Mozilla Foundation; was that the issue perhaps?
This page seems to agree with my reasoning in "Does Mozilla need permission from anyone to change the MPL?"
https://wiki.mozilla.org/MPL_Upgrade
"No permission is needed from any contributor to upgrade the codebase from MPL 1.1 to MPL 2 because the MPL 1.1 contains within itself a provision which allows software under 1.1 to be redistributed under a later version of the licence."