| |||||||||||||
Mozilla to update the MPLMozilla to update the MPLPosted Mar 10, 2010 19:55 UTC (Wed) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)In reply to: Mozilla to update the MPL by bjacob Parent article: Mozilla to update the MPL
>clauses about resolving legal disputes in California
So one thing they should change in the MPL is s/California/residence of the copyright holder/.
>LGPL v3 but even it has strange clauses about static linking (in section 4) which would be a problem if my project were a binary library
Well, you are free to add an exception to your library's copyright wording.
(Log in to post comments)
Mozilla to update the MPL Posted Mar 11, 2010 2:33 UTC (Thu) by paravoid (subscriber, #32869) [Link]
I think you are forgetting the fact that it's common for a work to have multiple copyright holders. Especially for free software, it's common from those holders to be from all over the world. What then?
Also, exceptions are nice and some of them extremely useful (e.g. the GPL/OpenSSL exception) but you can't call the result exactly GPL/MPL/whatnot. In terms that we are used to, you're essentially forking the license. Replying "but you can always add an exception" is similar to replying "but you can fork the software". You can do that obviously, but the point was, as far as I understood, that there's a "bug" somewhere in the original license.
|
|||||||||||||