Why didn you just relicense the Mozilla code under a non-copyleft license (like the MIT or BSD licenses) that would be compatible with all other possible licenses?
Because historically Mozilla code has always been released under some form of copyleft licensing, and we wish to continue to use copyleft provisions to promote sharing of modifications to Mozilla code. One of the motivations behind the original creation of the NPL and MPL was to promote sharing of modifications amongst all parties using Mozilla code. Using the BSD license, the MIT license, or similar non-copyleft licenses was considered at that time, and ultimately rejected in favor of the NPL/MPL copyleft mechanisms; to quote from the original Netscape Public License FAQ, The BSD license, in Netscape’s opinion, does not go far enough to ensure that developers will return their modifications to the Communicator source code to the community. The company feels that this is important to ensure long term viability of the source development effort. We believe that this goal is still worth promoting. Thus we have decided to retain the use of copyleft provisions; of the three license options
Related Questions
- How is granting a nonexclusive license to MIT compatible with MIT being able to exercise ‘all rights under copyright’? Don’t those rights include the right to grant exclusive rights?
- How will the new Mozilla license scheme affect developers who want to use Mozilla code in creating and distributing proprietary applications?
- Is code released under the W3C license compatible with non-copyleft / proprietary licenses?
