Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Subject: Re: MPL 2.0
From: Benoit Chesneau <benoitc@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFPTOkWS_wGp+5NNu7-3t4yG1nCp-sYKPQjN=UXrfPUqDBSJaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:26:15 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <85506D68-9F62-465F-A75A-68E529F1DB79@apache.org>
References: <9854698C-5232-4115-92F1-0674AD9E85DC@apache.org>
 <CAFPTOkWg6B8wNb182RsGn5mvyKntddaaMk=FZPRMqa=9sK62pQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABD8fLU1Fc5goTzpHd5ZEXzq+YFPoDsj_6hNk8ef9pZQHvRxiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPTOkWiuunyDoWgHCPF5nrvTbrnRGYVftxg1ZgKyApGVM_f1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABD8fLWAcfJ74=io8njUqgWh8SX2eFCin0fvwHkeCyF+k3WqFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPTOkWS_wGp+5NNu7-3t4yG1nCp-sYKPQjN=UXrfPUqDBSJaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org


On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:21 PM, Luis Villa wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 14:02, Luis Villa <luis@tieguy.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>> Or... if Benoit is the only contributor to that MPL'd project, then =
he
>>>> can simply re-release it under the ALv2.
>>>>=20
>>>> (or if it is a team, then with the agreement of all contributors)
>>>>=20
>>>> A dual license between MPL2/ALv2 is kinda silly. Since the ALv2 is
>>>> more permissive, then why bother putting MPL2 on there?
>>>=20
>>> Yes, that's essentially what I was trying to get at with my =
suggestion
>>> that it start ALv2.
>>>=20
>>> It feels odd not to recommend MPL, since I basically wrote it, =
but...
>>> c'est la vie ;)
>>=20
>> hehehe....
>>=20
>> Right license for the job, and all that :-)
>=20
> Right. And to be fair, we did not anticipate the (fairly unusual)
> situation where the original author would simultaneously want to do a
> more restrictive license (MPL) and then *later* a permissive license
> (AL). That's a little unusual.
>=20
> Benoit, if you could explain the reasoning behind that unusual change,
> that might lead to better suggestions.
>=20
> Thanks-
> Luis
>=20

Luis,

That's not really my choice here. One of the first user and also =
contributor to the lib has for policy to license most of the code he =
will use as MPL. While I need to use it in a project under apache =
license 2.=20

Things are still in discussion. I think it would be better to release it =
directiy under ALv2 or maybe a more permissive license. Will see how it =
goes. I'm not sure how other deals with such thing though. Generally the =
more permissive license is used in my work.=20

Thanks for the help anyway.

- beno=EEt=

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org