> Foa is currently licenced under the MPL
> <URL: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyMplIsEvil >. I imagine that this is
> deliberate. To the best of my knowledge, the MPL like the NPL
> before it
> is intended to be a Copyleft 'Free, as in free, Software' licence but
> one that puts one party (Netscape Corporation) in a favoured position,
> being able to exploit the code commercially.
> I have read the MPL several times, but apart from recommending it
> as a cure for insomnia, I am not any wiser.
> <URL: http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/docs/mozgpl.html >
When I made FOA Open Source I gave my motivations to my management (and I
think are still valid):
1) Help the FO community to grow, enabling an easy way to create stylesheet
to publish XML
2) Create a community which has particular interest into develop authoring
tools for FO
So we came out with the Mozilla license that is an "official" open-source
license and is among the standard SourceForge licenses.
> I doubt that FG intended to benefit Netscape, and so I suppose
> that the use of the MPL is to protect Hewlett-Packard's interests.
> (Note that Mozilla does not use the MPL currently, due entirely to
> the issues I am bringing up here, the need to link with GPL code).
> IMHO, it would be desirable to be able to link with GPL code,
> but this may be inherently impossible due to earlier decisions by,
> or simply the wishes of, the Developers and/or their employers.
> [BTW, eWitness has no intention of releasing any of its Line of
> Business code under the GPL. but we do contribute to the Open Source
> projects we use, and take part in related activities].
So, I don't understand which are the issues related to the use of MPL 1.1.
You can use the code and embed into a product, if you like, the only
limitation, as far as I have understood, is that you have to ack the
original crator and the company. This is pretty similar (if not entirely
equals) to the Apache's License.
Please, let me understand what this can stop you from contributing to FOA or
how could stop other people from contributing.
> It might also be desirable to use the same licence as Fop,
> <URL: http://xml.apache.org/fop/license.html >, which I believe
> is identical to the Apache 1.1 licence
> <URL: http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.1 >, and which therefore
> has definite, if minor, incompatibilities with the GPL.
> For my part, licencing is not an issue,
> <URL: http://www.freeworldlicence.org/other_licences.shtml >, and
> <URL: http://www.topology.org/soft/lice.html >
> and I am perfectly prepared to make over any and all of my
> to GF and/or others nominated by this project, so that my contribution
> can be released under any licence whatsoever, or for that matter kept
> secret and carefully guarded for all eternity.
> What is an issue is the question of what classification of source
> code can be incorporated:
> from Sun?
> from Fop?
> from GNU?
> from Blackdown?
> Any thoughts?
Incorporating other open-sources projects or code is not an issue for FOA,
since in the SourceForge project we still have an open-source aim.
FOP already incorporate a lot of existing packages and FOA just redistribute
a customised version of FOP.