« Postfacto Recognition | Main | Copyright Assignment »

April 13, 2005



Are you implicity stating here that the CDDL does not then meet your desire for MPL type licences that you "personally would prefer to see it fixed for reuse"? Is that not one of the major areas that the CDDL is supposed to address? Or are you trying to distance yourself from it?

Simon Phipps

The apology is a nice gesture, but I'm afraid that the OSI statement is an attack, plain and simple. All the time the OSI web site says that "Mozilla is a failed experiment" it remains an attack. What is needed is a retraction on the OSI web site, not an explanation of why the attack is really a hug. Personally I think that the MPL model is the best model for open source licensing,as I have explained on my blog[1], balancing the developer freedom of the BSDL with the social responsibility of the GPL. The OSI attack leaves me completely bemused.

[1] http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink/20050415#failed_as_in_succeeded_wildly

Fernando Cassia

"Okay, so first of all, I'm a Pacificist. I've never declared war on anyone, nor can I imagine myself declaring war. Try to remember this is software, not ethnic cleansing..."

Great statement, same here. The "not ethnic cleansing part"... should be preached to the most outraged Firefox aficionados. :)

Firefox fans don't like it up'em

Danese Cooper

Actually I think CDDL is a fine license. I did help the team that wrote it (got a Chairman's Award for that work, too). It needs just a little tweaking IMHO to be a great template version of MPL. That doesn't mean the Mozilla community will accept it or even consider it...although it is an Open Source Value to reuse worthy work (even if its been done by people working for a multi-national :-) )

The comments to this entry are closed.