decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Mozilla Would Like to Pick Your Brain - Revising the MPL
Sunday, July 18 2010 @ 02:04 PM EDT

Can we talk about licenses for a bit? It's something I've wanted to talk to you about for a long time, and it's a good time for it, because Mozilla is redrafting its license and would like your input.

Here's where you can find the Mozilla Public License, the current version, along with a FAQ that explains it and an annotated version, and here's where you can get the draft of the revised version [PDF], and here is a red-lined version [PDF]. Nothing in the draft revision is yet set in stone. You'll notice that they are working on it like Legos, issue by issue, and this draft isn't addressing all the issues they hope to address. Here's the big picture.

But before we dig in, I'd like to talk to you about the big picture with licenses generally, where we are now, and why it's important to revamp licenses at this point in time. I hope OSI folk will read this too, because in my view, what Mozilla is doing is what needs to be done with every single license on the OSI list. Let me explain why.

This isn't Mozilla speaking, by the way, from here on. This is me. Li'l ole me. That's all, just me. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a programmer, but I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I have some things I really want to say to you.

I will have to be fairly blunt, or at least as clear as I can be, because this is such an important subject. This isn't to pick at old wounds or to find fault with anyone, but to try to steer our thinking toward what I believe needs to happen next. True friends tell you the truth, even if it isn't completely complimentary. Isn't that so? So, please bear with me and know that this is coming from a sincere heart.

The Goode Olde Dayes (Before Litigation):

Remember when all we had to fight about in the community was Emacs or vi? Or BSD or GPL? Or whether to say GNU/Linux or just Linux?

What simple times those were.

And then came SCO.

At first, frankly, I thought it was just funny. All the early articles were written as a lark, with geek humor on parade and just having fun. And it was funny. I'll never forget the GPL-is-Unconstitutional strategy. I laughed so hard when that was announced, I had tears in my eyes.

But seven years later, is it still funny? Not so much. It's disturbing, particularly now that we know what cards SCO was holding, and it turns out to have been more a bluff than a normal lawsuit. At least that's the conclusion I've come to.

That's the part that is disturbing. How do you plan for irrationality? Seriously. When you draft a license, you are trying to accomplish your goal, and the lawyers are thinking about what could possibly go wrong, so they can draft language to try to avoid it. But how do you plan for a litigant like SCO? Or Psystar? Or Katzer, the guy in the toy train case, Jacobsen v. Katzer? These are litigants that have no real hope of winning, in my analysis, but they do it anyway. How do lawyers plan for that? How does the community?

What Can You Do About Irrational Lawsuits?

Your first goal is to try to avoid them in the first place. One thing you do is look at your license, look at developments in the tech field, and then redraft your license to meet the new threats as you discern them. GPLv3 is the result of that kind of thinking. It was specifically redone to deal with real-life issues, patents, for one, and folks trying to enjoy GPL code without fully complying with the spirit of the license. There are folks who will always try to do that, so if you find them showing up, you tweak the language so they can't do that any more.

Another thing you can do is see what happens in litigation, and then tweak your license to make sure it doesn't happen any more. You do that by looking at the rulings the court makes and extrapolating. Let's take the model train case as an example. The court in that case ruled that open source license conditions are enforceable as a copyright condition. This is extremely important in a license, because you want your license enforceable under copyright law, not contract law. Why? Because contract law goes by state law, and copyright law is federal. That matters for a number of reasons. The most important is because you have the right under copyright law to ask the court for an injunction. That is your nuclear option, and it helps to let the Dark Side know you have it in your weapons store, for one thing, and it definitely helps to police the bad guys, if you need to do that.

Another plus is that state court judges are voted into office. Federal judges are appointed for life, and while politics can enter into the appointment, once in office, the politics fades away for the most part. Recently, that has been changing somewhat, sadly, but generally speaking federal judges are independent and the system was set up to let them be. It's a feature, not a bug. There is nothing you can do to them, practically speaking, so they can afford to be independent.

In the toy train case, it was the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that got the case going in the right direction. The lower court was clueless about FOSS, and while there has been a lot of praise written about the case, my view is starker.

I think the Artistic License 1.0 should never have been approved in the first place. Certainly once it was pointed out, by FSF, that there were problems with the license, OSI and the Artistic License folks should have fixed it. They did in time draft another version of the license, but OSI didn't warn the community not to use the earliest version any more. It remained on OSI's approved list without so much as a word about the dangers of using a license with such vague wording. How was a programmer supposed to know that he should change the license on his software for toy trains? That's not a programmer's job or skill set. That's OSI's job.

After the case started, I drew OSI's attention privately and publicly to the problem about the list and still nothing happened to fix this problem for the longest time. OSI dropped the ball on that one, I think. And that case nearly scuttled our FOSS ship. Read some of the lower court's decisions if you have the stomach for it, or for that matter some of the filings. It took the combined forces of all the brainiac lawyers in the community to fix the mess that resulted from a perfect storm of a vague and inadequately worded license that should have been euthanized before it could do harm, a lawyer who had little experience with litigation or FOSS, and a judge who looked at everything from a traditional perspective and at first got little help to see it any differently. It was very nearly a disaster. And that's the truth as I see it. And the sad part is that it could have been avoided.

Now What?

Well, now what? If we are smart, we'll learn from that brush with death and look at every license on the OSI list and fix any that need fixing. Seriously. That's what Mozilla is doing, and I hope you will help them out. They are taking the time to make sure that everything is as air-tight as possible. For example, note section 3.6 of the draft, and you'll see that they got very explicit language that Sections 3.2-3.5 are conditions. They were before too, but now there can be no doubt or pretend doubt about it. Clear language in licenses and contracts is how you can cut back on stupid lawsuits. Let's learn from the APA's Amendment 2 in the SCO v. Novell case, shall we? They've been arguing about that for years now, and it's still not completely over. Here's what Mozilla says about better language post-Jacobsen:

The U.S. Federal Circuit’s 2009 ruling in Jacobsen v. Katzer suggests that licenses should use ‘language of condition’ to make it clear that any requirements are part of the copyright license and not mere contract terms. Examples of such language include ‘provided that’ or ‘subject to compliance with conditions in sections X, Y, and Z.’ Resolving this could affect license structure as well if requirements must be reorganized in order to underscore their status as conditions.
We have that ruling as text, by the way, as well as the PDF. And here's an article on Law.com on recent rulings in software licensing disputes that mentions the case and explains it in that context. It reinforces what I'm telling you here about the importance of precise language and then explains the issue of limitations on scope or contractual covenants:
In the end, the more accurately the licensee anticipates its desired uses, the less likely that the software license will require later amendments or increased fees, or be the subject of litigation....

In evaluating a licensor's claims, a court must determine if a licensor has established that the disputed terms of the license are limitations on the scope of the license, and thus an issue of copyright, or independent contractual covenants, and thus contractual rights.

In short, a breach of a covenant or a contractual promise remains a state contract claim, but if the licensee's improper action constitutes a failure to satisfy a condition of the license, that use is unauthorized and may constitute copyright infringement.

In the good old days, the community might have gotten into flame wars, but that was the worst that happened. Litigation was virtually unknown. Competition was by writing the best code, creating the most flourishing community, not by dirty tricks and using courts to crush a competitor. It's the proprietary software folks who designed that template. It's one reason I really don't want to use their software, actually. I don't approve of their business practices.

But we can't pretend they aren't out there or that they'll suddenly see the light and change their ways. They won't. They haven't. They will, from all I've seen, do whatever will make them money.

Now, Open Source was born to try to get businesses to adopt open source code. A lot of them have. So from that perspective, it was a success. But with corporate adoption came corporate ways of thinking and acting. That's a problem for the community, if your goal remains a real, free and open operating system with all the trimmings. I won't get into the fine points of whether it was a good thing to invite business into the community. This article is hard enough to write without that detour. But whatever your views are, they're here. They're here to stay. So the community has to come up with strategies to make sure they don't ruin everything, even when they think they are helping. That's on top of dealing with the bullies and meanies.

Some of that culture clash is now showing up in license discussions. Surprise me not. Of course, it would. The corporate guys have in-house lawyers, busily crafting licenses that they intend to benefit their client first, last, and in the middle. They'll nod toward community views, if they have to, but they'll trick you if they can. And they can, if you don't have lawyers too. It's not a fair fight.

Why? Because you'll still be looking at things from the honest, open, and fair perspective of the community, where no one is tricky like that. You don't need to be. It's never been about that. It's been about software, about code, about the best code. And because you don't know the law.

What I'm trying to express is simply this: it's time to seriously focus on license drafting. The purpose of lawyers is to protect your interests, to draft language that looks down the road a piece and tries to head off troubles. I think after SCO and the toy train case, we can assume there will be troubles. It would be derelict not to let the lawyers do what they do best and protect us. I know what some of you are feeling right now: sad. I feel it too. The community was built on trust, and I'm saying that now it can't be like that totally any more. I know. It is sad. But it's reality, too. I'm all about reality.

And that's why my suggestion is that OSI get some lawyers on the board, broaden the board and OSI's role to reflect the entire community, and seriously review each and every license on the approved list. They need a board that understands this issue, one that reflects the community at large. OSI has to expand, in other words, to include the entire community, not just one wing of it, which in the past was fine but no longer is enough. So my suggestion is that OSI morph to become broader, larger, more reflective of the F in FOSS, so that the approved license list is helpful to the community at large and no one's interests get ignored or tossed under the bus.

And here's where it gets a little complicated. Thank you for reading this far, by the way, and I hope you don't give up yet. Here's another truth: There would never have been any FOSS if it were up to corporate lawyers. They are not about sharing. They are about protecting proprietary interests. So you can't just hand them a license and say, "Here. Fix it." They will steer you away from freedom and openness with all their might, because that's how they are wired. That's when they are trying. Imagine if they are trying to trip you up.

So they will come up with what they come up with, but it's up to you to notice when they go too far or are steering the FOSS Ship straight into the weeds. Now, happily there are some lawyers who are more clueful. Some went to law school precisely to help FOSS. A few have been helping for a long time. You want a lawyer like that, if possible.

I mention this because if OSI doesn't follow my suggestion, and in the past, they certainly didn't, I hope that you will hire a lawyer yourself specifically to review any license that you are responsible for.

Ideally, take it to Software Freedom Law Center. They understand all the licenses, including the GPL, and you want that since it's the most prevalent license the community uses. You want to be interoperable, if possible. And they have lawyers with the most experience. It's no accident who it was that noticed the problems with the first Artistic License. Whatever your views may be, I think it is now clear that Richard Stallman accurately foretold what the corporate types might come up with to fight against freedom for the code, and Eben Moglen has protected the community's interests with fidelity and intelligence, as has Dan Ravicher of PubPat. There are other really experienced lawyers too, like Carlo Piana and Mark Webbink who are both time-tested and refined by real life legal situations. So try for the best. You do that when you have a medical situation. It's no different with lawyers.

Which reminds me. I would hope, in a perfect world, that OSI would invite lawyers such as the ones we have been watching at work in the SCO and Psystar sagas to participate. Big law is expensive, yes, but most firms do pro bono work too. Maybe they could be persuaded to donate a little time to the cause. I won't put anyone on the spot by naming names, but you know who you are. Would you please consider it? The community is being attacked by folks with some of the best lawyers in the world. We need the same.

Mozilla's Draft - How to Help Out:

So, with that overview, will you please seriously look at the Mozilla draft and see if you notice anything that isn't tweaked just right? See anything that worries you? Anything missing? If so, please note it here or there or both. It's serious business, and we can't leave it up to just the lawyers. It's got to be a collaboration, because just as the community didn't get it right on their own, neither will the lawyers. We need to work together, and with that, I'm going to take a more detailed look at their draft myself and see if I see anything important. If you have questions, I'll try to get answers for you on anything that matters. As you know, Mozilla source code, as opposed to some tools and other elements, is licensed under a "disjunctive tri-license giving you the choice of one of the three following sets of free software/open source licensing terms," MPL 1.1 or later, GPL 2.0 or later, or LGPL 2.1 or later. "Or later" would include GPLv3, I presume, and here's some history of Mozilla licensing, and you'll see this isn't the first tweak. An earlier one addressed "perceived incompatibilities" between the MPL and the GPL, for example. And that's the right thing to do, address issues as they come to your attention.

It would help me, personally, and maybe you too if someone would come up with a comparative chart, like this one we did when we were working on the CDDL license at Sun's request years ago. I found charts like that incredibly useful. And here's what Mozilla has in mind, from its scope page:

We will definitely:
  • Modernize, maintain, and simplify the license. The world has changed in the past ten years, and there are places where we would like to change with it. We also now have ten years of experience with the license which we’ll use to help make it easier to use for everyone.

  • Remain a free and open license. We have already been in touch with the FSF and OSI to ensure that we remain consistent with their principles and policies.
We will also seriously investigate:
  • Becoming Apache compatible, both in our patent terms and more broadly, to help projects using the MPL become more flexible about using Apache-licensed code.

  • The impact of our patent license grant (particularly section 8.2) to reflect modern licensing practice.

  • Globalizing the license.

  • Templatizing the license, and taking other appropriate steps to reduce license proliferation, including working with the authors of other license derivatives.

  • Updating the Source/Executable distinction for modern development practices, including interpreted languages, binary modification, and non-code users.
We are open to any other serious suggestions that advance Mozilla’s mission and its role as license steward. As noted next, though, there are a few topics that we are pretty certain will remain out of scope.

We are not planning to:

  • Change licenses or significantly alter the scope of the file-level copyleft. For more explanation, see the entry in the FAQ.

  • Address the issue of distribution of software as a web service, sometimes known as the “web service loophole.” This is a sensitive and complicated issue. We will likely examine it in more depth in the near future, but we are not planning to address it as part of this process because we don’t want controversy over that issue to get in the way of the basic work of updating the MPL.
So, that's their big picture. But they are open to other issues being brought up and possibly addressed. Some have already raised some issues, keeping in mind that a lot of projects use the MPL and their interests may not be identical to Mozilla's but are still very important:
Areas for Exploration

The following is a list of topics that various parties have asked us to investigate over the past few years, and the past few days (via our comment tool). Mozilla does not necessarily believe that everything on this list will be an issue worth fixing; some may be too difficult to fix properly, or we might think they are actually a feature, but we will list them for completeness and to stimulate further discussion and research.

Note that this list is not final; we will continue to add topics and notes as we get them from participants.

For more details, including brief historical rationales where appropriate, click the link in each description.

License Grant and Termination

  • The patent peace clause (section 8.2) may be complex in nature and broad in scope when compared to other licenses.

  • Trademark and fair use are not dealt with as explicitly as possible, potentially giving some users incorrect impressions of the impact of the license on those rights.
Compatibility
  • The MPL may be incompatible with the Apache and GPL licenses.

  • Section 6 (‘New Versions’) may be unnecessarily complex for other projects who want to use the license.

  • The MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license can lead to single-license ‘forking.’
Globalization
Usage
Maintenance and Modernization
I repositioned the links a bit, so they'd be, I hope, a little clearer as to what they are.

If you are reading this list and saying, "It's Sunday, for crying out loud. I can't bear to think about all this," you are not alone. I feel the same way. That's why I wrote what I did, to help you see how important it is to try and to inspire myself. And if you can't care about all of it, focus on the one or two issues that you think matter the most. We can't just leave all this to the lawyers or even just to Mozilla. Too many projects use their license, so it's a matter for everyone.

Here's what Mozilla is asking for, and where to send any input:

Nothing in this Alpha draft is final; we welcome feedback both on questions of style (e.g., clarification of language) and of substance (e.g., disagreement with particular policy changes indicated by the draft.) For more information on how to provide feedback, see mpl.mozilla.org/participate/alpha/.
If you go there, you'll find a commenting tool for specific language issues or you can use their dedicated mailing list for this work, governance-mpl-update@lists.mozilla.org. There's a Google Groups page also. Or comment here. They read Groklaw.

Update: A chart, which is just our chart on Groklaw so we can analyze better, not an official Mozilla chart, so for anything that matter, do check the PDF also:

************************************

MPL-1.1 MPL-2.0 alpha 1

1

Definitions.

1

Definitions.

1.0.1

Commercial Use”

means distribution or otherwise making the Covered Code available to a third party.1

---

(No equivalent clause.)

1.1

Contributor”

means each entity that creates or contributes to the creation of Modifications.

1.1

Contributor” means (a) the individual or entity that originally makes Original Software available under this License2 and (b) each subsequent individual or entity that creates or contributes to the creation of Modifications.

1.2

Contributor Version”

means the combination of the Original Code, prior Modifications used by a Contributor, and the Modifications made by that particular Contributor.

1.2

Contributor Version” means the combination of (a) the Original Software,2 (b) prior Modifications used by a Contributor (if any)3, and (c) the Modifications made by that particular Contributor.

1.3

Covered Code”

means the Original Code or Modifications or the combination of the Original Code and Modifications, in each case including portions thereof.

1.3

Covered Software” means (a) the Original Software or (b) Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Software with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions thereof.

1.4

Electronic Distribution Mechanism”

means a mechanism generally accepted in the software development community for the electronic transfer of data.5

---

(No equivalent clause.)

1.5

Executable”

means Covered Code in any form other than Source Code.

1.4

Executable” means the Covered Software in any form other than Source Code.

1.6

Initial Developer”

means the individual or entity identified as the Initial Developer in the Source Code notice required by Exhibit A.6

---

(No equivalent clause.)

1.7

Larger Work”

means a work which combines Covered Code or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License.

1.5

Larger Work” means a work that combines Covered Software or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License.

1.8

License”

means this document.

1.6

License” means this document.

1.8.1

Licensable”

means having the right to grant, to the maximum extent possible, whether at the time of the initial grant or subsequently acquired, any and all of the rights conveyed herein.

1.6.1

Licensable” means having the right to grant, to the maximum extent possible, whether at the time of the initial grant or subsequently acquired, any and all of the rights conveyed herein.

1.9

Modifications”

means any addition to or deletion from the substance or structure of either the Original Code or any previous Modifications. When Covered Code is released as a series of files, a Modification is:

a. Any addition to or deletion from the contents of a file containing Original Code or previous Modifications.

b. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Code or previous Modifications.

1.7

Modifications” means the Source Code and Executable form of any of the following:

A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from, or modification of the contents of a file containing Original Software or previous Modifications.

B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous Modifications.

1.10

Original Code”

means Source Code of computer software code which is described in the Source Code notice required by Exhibit A as Original Code, and which, at the time of its release under this License is not already Covered Code governed by this License.

1.8

Original Software” means the Source Code and Executable form that is originally released under this License.

1.10.1

Patent Claims”

means any patent claim(s), now owned or hereafter acquired, including without limitation, method, process, and apparatus claims, in any patent Licensable by grantor.

1.9

Patent Claims” of a Contributor means any patent claim(s), now owned or hereafter acquired, including without limitation, method, process, and apparatus claims, in any patent Licensable by such Contributor which would be infringed, but for the grant of the License, by the making, using, or selling of such Contributor’s Original Software or such Contributor’s Modifications, either alone or in combination with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination).7

1.11

Source Code”

means the preferred form of the Covered Code for making modifications to it, including all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, scripts used to control compilation and installation of an Executable, or source code differential comparisons against either the Original Code or another well known, available Covered Code of the Contributor's choice. The Source Code can be in a compressed or archival form, provided the appropriate decompression or de-archiving software is widely available for no charge.

1.10

Source Code” means (a) the preferred form of the computer software code in which modifications are made and (b) associated documentation included in or with such code.

1.12

You” (or “Your”)

means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License or a future version of this License8 issued under Section 6.1.9 For legal entities, "You" includes any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with You. For purposes of this definition, "control" means (a) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or beneficial ownership of such entity.

1.11

You” (or “Your”) means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under this License. For legal entities, “You” includes any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with You. For purposes of this definition, “control” means (a) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or beneficial ownership of such entity.

2

Source Code License.

2

License Grants.

2.1

The Initial Developer Grant.

The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims:

a. under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work; and

b. under Patents Claims infringed by the making, using or selling of Original Code, to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose of the Original Code (or portions thereof).

c. the licenses granted in this Section 2.1 (a) and (b) are effective on the date Initial Developer first distributes Original Code under the terms of this License.

d. Notwithstanding Section 2.1 (b) above, no patent license is granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2) separate from the Original Code; or 3) for infringements caused by: i) the modification of the Original Code or ii) the combination of the Original Code with other software or devices.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

2.2

Contributor Grant.

Subject to third party intellectual property claims, each10 Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license

a. under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Contributor, to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Modifications created by such Contributor (or portions thereof) either on an unmodified basis, with other Modifications, as Covered Code and/or as part of a Larger Work; and

b. under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using, or selling of Modifications made by that Contributor either alone and/or in combination with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination), to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and/or otherwise dispose of: 1) Modifications made by that Contributor (or portions thereof); and 2) the combination of Modifications made by that Contributor with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination).

c. the licenses granted in Sections 2.2 (a) and 2.2 (b) are effective on the date Contributor first makes Commercial Use of the Covered Code.11

d. Notwithstanding Section 2.2 (b) above, no patent license is granted: 1) for any code that Contributor has deleted from the Contributor Version; 2) separate from the Contributor Version; 3) for infringements caused by: i) third party modifications of Contributor Version or ii) the combination of Modifications made by that Contributor with other software (except as part of the Contributor Version) or other devices; or 4) under Patent Claims infringed by Covered Code in the absence of Modifications made by that Contributor.

2.1

Each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license:

(a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by such Contributor to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute such Contributor’s Original Software (or portions thereof) and/or such Contributor’s Modifications (or portions thereof), either on an unmodified basis, with other Modifications or as part of a Larger Work; and

(b) under Patent Claims of such Contributor to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, import, and/or otherwise dispose of (1) in the case of the initial Contributor, initial Contributor’s Original Software (or portions thereof); (2) such Contributor’s Modifications (or portions thereof); and (3) the combination of such Contributor’s Modifications with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination).

(c) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted by a Contributor: (1) for any code that You or a Contributor has deleted from Covered Software; (2) for infringements caused by: (i) Your and any other third party’s modifications of the Covered Software, or (ii) the combination of such Contributor’s Covered Software with other software (except as part of its Contributor Version) or other devices; or (3) under Patent Claims infringed by Covered Software in the absence of such Contributor’s Modifications or such Contributor’s Original Software.

(d) The licenses granted under 2.1(a) and 2.1(b) are not effective until the date the Contributor first distributes Contributor’s Original Software or Contributor’s Modifications to a third party.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

2.2

Each Contributor represents that the Contributor believes its Modifications are its original creation(s) or it has sufficient rights to grant the rights to its Modifications conveyed by this License.12

3

Distribution Obligations.

3

Responsibilities.

3.1

Application of License.

The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License, including without limitation Section 2.2.13 The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1,14 and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder. However, You may include an additional document offering the additional rights described in Section 3.5.

3.1

Modifications.

The Modifications that You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License.

---

(Included as part of section 3.1.)

3.2

Distribution of Source Form.

All distribution of Covered Software in Source Code form must be under the terms of this License. You must inform recipients how they can obtain a copy of this License, and You may not attempt to alter or restrict the recipient’s rights in the Source Code form.

3.2

Availability of Source Code.

Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

3.3

Description of Modifications.

You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original Code provided by the Initial Developer and including the name of the Initial Developer in (a) the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the origin or ownership of the Covered Code.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

3.4

Intellectual Property Matters

---

(No equivalent clause.)

3.4 (a)

Third Party Claims

If Contributor has knowledge that a license under a third party's intellectual property rights is required to exercise the rights granted by such Contributor under Sections 2.1 or 2.2, Contributor must include a text file with the Source Code distribution titled "LEGAL" which describes the claim and the party making the claim in sufficient detail that a recipient will know whom to contact. If Contributor obtains such knowledge after the Modification is made available as described in Section 3.2, Contributor shall promptly modify the LEGAL file in all copies Contributor makes available thereafter and shall take other steps (such as notifying appropriate mailing lists or newsgroups) reasonably calculated to inform those who received the Covered Code that new knowledge has been obtained.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

3.4 (b)

Contributor APIs

If Contributor's Modifications include an application programming interface and Contributor has knowledge of patent licenses which are reasonably necessary to implement that API, Contributor must also include this information in the legal file.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

3.4 (c)

Representations.18

Contributor represents that, except as disclosed pursuant to Section 3.4 (a) above, Contributor believes that Contributor's Modifications are Contributor's original creation(s) and/or Contributor has sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

3.5

Required Notices.

You must duplicate the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code. If it is not possible to put such notice in a particular Source Code file due to its structure, then You must include such notice in a location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to look for such a notice. If You created one or more Modification(s) You may add your name as a Contributor to the notice described in Exhibit A. You must also duplicate this License in any documentation for the Source Code where You describe recipients' rights or ownership rights relating to Covered Code. You may choose to offer, and to charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligations to one or more recipients of Covered Code. However, You may do so only on Your own behalf, and not on behalf of the Initial Developer or any Contributor. You must make it absolutely clear than any such warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligation is offered by You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of warranty, support, indemnity or liability terms You offer.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

3.6

Distribution of Executable Versions.19

You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the requirements of Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 have been met for that Covered Code, and if You include a notice stating that the Source Code version of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License, including a description of how and where You have fulfilled the obligations of Section 3.2. The notice must be conspicuously included in any notice in an Executable version, related documentation or collateral in which You describe recipients' rights relating to the Covered Code. You may distribute the Executable version of Covered Code or ownership rights under a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License and that the license for the Executable version does not attempt to limit or alter the recipient's rights in the Source Code version from the rights set forth in this License. If You distribute the Executable version under a different license You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer or any Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer.

3.3

Distribution of Executable Form.

If you distribute Covered Software in Executable form then:

(a) such Covered Software must also be made available in Source Code form, as described in Section 3.2, and you must inform recipients how they can obtain a copy of such Covered Software by reasonable means, at no more than a nominal charge;15

(b) You may distribute such Executable form under the terms of this License or under different terms, provided that the license for the Executable form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipient’s rights in the Source Code form under this License.16

(c) You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software.17

---

(Included as part of section 3.6.)

3.5

Application of Additional Terms.

You may choose to offer, and to charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligations to one or more recipients of Covered Software. However, You may do so only on Your own behalf, and not on behalf of any Contributor. You must make it absolutely clear that any such warranty, support, indemnity, or liability obligation is offered by You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify every Contributor for any liability incurred by such Contributor as a result of warranty, support, indemnity or liability terms You offer.

3.7

Larger Works.20

You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

---

(No equivalent clause.)

3.4

Notices.

You may not remove or alter any valid copyright or patent notices contained within the Source Code form of the Covered Software, or any valid notices of licensing.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

3.6

Conditions.

Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 are express conditions of the licenses granted in Section 2.

4

Inability to Comply Due to Statute or Regulation.

If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Covered Code due to statute, judicial order, or regulation then You must: (a) comply with the terms of this License to the maximum extent possible; and (b) describe the limitations and the code they affect. Such description must be included in the legal file described in Section 3.4 and must be included with all distributions of the Source Code. Except to the extent prohibited by statute or regulation, such description must be sufficiently detailed for a recipient of ordinary skill to be able to understand it.

4

Inability to Comply Due to Statute or Regulation.

If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Covered Code due to statute, judicial order, or regulation then You must: (a) comply with the terms of this License to the maximum extent possible; and (b) describe the limitations and the code they affect. Such description must be placed in a text file included with all distributions of the Source Code. Except to the extent prohibited by statute or regulation, such description must be sufficiently detailed for a recipient of ordinary skill to be able to understand it.

5

Application of this License.

This License applies to code to which the Initial Developer has attached the notice in Exhibit A and to related Covered Code.

5

Application of this License.

This License applies to code to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A and to related Covered Code.

6

Versions of the License.

11

Versions of the License.

6.1

New Versions

Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape") may publish revised and/or new versions of the License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number.

11.1

New Versions.

Mozilla Foundation is the license steward. Except as provided in Section 11.3, no one other than the license steward has the right to modify or publish new versions of this License. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number.

6.2

Effect of New Versions

Once Covered Code has been published under a particular version of the License, You may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Covered Code under the terms of any subsequent version of the License published by Netscape. No one other than Netscape has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.

11.2

Effect of New Versions.

You may continue to use, distribute, or otherwise make the Covered Code available under the terms of the version of the License under which You originally received the Covered Code. You may also choose to use, distribute or otherwise make the Covered Code available under the terms of any subsequent version of the License published by the license steward.

6.3

Derivative Works

If You create or use a modified version of this License (which you may only do in order to apply it to code which is not already Covered Code governed by this License), You must (a) rename Your license so that the phrases "Mozilla", "MOZILLAPL", "MOZPL", "Netscape", "MPL", "NPL" or any confusingly similar phrase do not appear in your license (except to note that your license differs from this License) and (b) otherwise make it clear that Your version of the license contains terms which differ from the Mozilla Public License and Netscape Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer, Original Code or Contributor in the notice described in Exhibit A shall not of themselves be deemed to be modifications of this License.)

11.3

Modified Versions.

When You are an initial Contributor and You want to create a new license for Your Original Code, You may create and use a modified version of this License if You rename the license and remove any references to the name of the license steward (except to note that the license differs from this License).

7

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY

COVERED CODE IS PROVIDED UNDER THIS LICENSE ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES THAT THE COVERED CODE IS FREE OF DEFECTS, MERCHANTABLE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGING. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE COVERED CODE IS WITH YOU. SHOULD ANY COVERED CODE PROVE DEFECTIVE IN ANY RESPECT, YOU (NOT THE INITIAL DEVELOPER OR ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR) ASSUME THE COST OF ANY NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY COVERED CODE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER.

7

Disclaimer of Warranty.

COVERED CODE IS PROVIDED UNDER THIS LICENSE ON AN “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES THAT THE COVERED CODE IS FREE OF DEFECTS, MERCHANTABLE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGING. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE COVERED CODE IS WITH YOU. SHOULD ANY COVERED CODE PROVE DEFECTIVE IN ANY RESPECT, YOU (NOT ANY CONTRIBUTOR) ASSUME THE COST OF ANY NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY COVERED CODE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER.

8

Termination21

6

Termination.

8.1

This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses to the Covered Code which are properly granted shall survive any termination of this License. Provisions which, by their nature, must remain in effect beyond the termination of this License shall survive.

6.1

This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses to the Covered Code which are properly granted shall survive any termination of this License. Provisions which, by their nature, must remain in effect beyond the termination of this License shall survive.

8.2

If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions) against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom You file such action is referred to as "Participant") alleging that:

a. such Participant's Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then any and all rights granted by such Participant to You under Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2 of this License shall, upon 60 days notice from Participant terminate prospectively, unless if within 60 days after receipt of notice You either: (i) agree in writing to pay Participant a mutually agreeable reasonable royalty for Your past and future use of Modifications made by such Participant, or (ii) withdraw Your litigation claim with respect to the Contributor Version against such Participant. If within 60 days of notice, a reasonable royalty and payment arrangement are not mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties or the litigation claim is not withdrawn, the rights granted by Participant to You under Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2 automatically terminate at the expiration of the 60 day notice period specified above.

b. any software, hardware, or device, other than such Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are revoked effective as of the date You first made, used, sold, distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that Participant.

6.2

If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against a Contributor (the Contributor against whom You file such action is referred to as “Participant”) alleging that:

(a) such Participant’s Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then any and all rights granted by such Participant to You under Section 2 of this License shall, upon 60 days notice from Participant terminate prospectively, unless if within 60 days after receipt of notice You either: (i) agree in writing to pay Participant a mutually agreeable reasonable royalty for Your past and future use of Modifications made by such Participant, or (ii) withdraw Your litigation claim with respect to the Contributor Version against such Participant. If within 60 days of notice, a reasonable royalty and payment arrangement are not mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties or the litigation claim is not withdrawn, the rights granted by Participant to You under Section 2 automatically terminate at the expiration of the 60 day notice period specified above.

(b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such Participant’s Contributor Version, directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such Participant under Section 2.1(b) are revoked effective as of the date You first made, used, sold, distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that Participant.

8.3

If You assert a patent infringement claim against Participant alleging that such Participant's Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent where such claim is resolved (such as by license or settlement) prior to the initiation of patent infringement litigation, then the reasonable value of the licenses granted by such Participant under Sections 2.1 or 2.2 shall be taken into account in determining the amount or value of any payment or license.

6.3

If You assert a patent infringement claim against Participant alleging that such Participant’s Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent where such claim is resolved (such as by license or settlement) prior to the initiation of patent infringement litigation, then the reasonable value of the licenses granted by such Participant under Section 2 shall be taken into account in determining the amount or value of any payment or license.

8.4

In the event of termination under Sections 8.1 or 8.2 above, all end user license agreements (excluding distributors and resellers) which have been validly granted by You or any distributor hereunder prior to termination shall survive termination.

6.4

In the event of termination under Sections 6.1 or 6.2 above, all end user license agreements (excluding distributors and resellers) which have been validly granted by You or any distributor hereunder prior to termination shall survive termination.

9

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY22

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNDER NO LEGAL THEORY, WHETHER TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), CONTRACT, OR OTHERWISE, SHALL YOU, THE INITIAL DEVELOPER, ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR, OR ANY DISTRIBUTOR OF COVERED CODE, OR ANY SUPPLIER OF ANY OF SUCH PARTIES, BE LIABLE TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY CHARACTER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THIS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SHALL NOT APPLY TO LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY RESULTING FROM SUCH PARTY'S NEGLIGENCE TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE LAW PROHIBITS SUCH LIMITATION. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

8

Limitation of Liability.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNDER NO LEGAL THEORY, WHETHER TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), CONTRACT, OR OTHERWISE, SHALL YOU, ANY CONTRIBUTOR, OR ANY DISTRIBUTOR OF COVERED CODE, OR ANY SUPPLIER OF ANY OF SUCH PARTIES, BE LIABLE TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY CHARACTER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THIS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SHALL NOT APPLY TO LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY RESULTING FROM SUCH PARTY’S NEGLIGENCE TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE LAW PROHIBITS SUCH LIMITATION. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

10

U.S. government end users

The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995). Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only those rights set forth herein.

---

(No equivalent clause.)

11

Miscellaneous23

This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable. This License shall be governed by California law provisions (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise), excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of America, any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.24 Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.

9

Miscellaneous.

This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable. This License shall be governed by California law provisions (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise), excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of America, any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.

12

Responsibility for claims

As between Initial Developer and the Contributors, each party is responsible for claims and damages arising, directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights under this License and You agree to work with Initial Developer and Contributors to distribute such responsibility on an equitable basis. Nothing herein is intended or shall be deemed to constitute any admission of liability.

10

Responsibility for Claims.

As among Contributors, each party is responsible for claims and damages arising, directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights under this License and You agree to work with Contributors to distribute such responsibility on an equitable basis. Nothing herein is intended or shall be deemed to constitute any admission of liability.

13

Multiple-licensed code

Initial Developer may designate portions of the Covered Code as "Multiple-Licensed". "Multiple-Licensed" means that the Initial Developer permits you to utilize portions of the Covered Code under Your choice of the MPL or the alternative licenses, if any, specified by the Initial Developer in the file described in Exhibit A.

12

Multiple-licensed code.

The initial Contributor may designate portions of the Covered Software as “Multiple-Licensed”. “Multiple-Licensed” means that the initial Contributor permits you to utilize portions of the Covered Software under Your choice of the MPL or the alternative licenses, if any, specified by the initial Contributor in the notice described in Exhibit A.

A

Exhibit A - Mozilla Public License.

"The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License Version 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License.

The Original Code is ______________________________________.

The Initial Developer of the Original Code is ________________________. Portions created by ______________________ are Copyright (C) ______

_______________________. All Rights Reserved.

Contributor(s): ______________________________________.

Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of the _____ license (the "[___] License"), in which case the provisions of [______] License are applicable instead of those above. If you wish to allow use of your version of this file only under the terms of the [____] License and not to allow others to use your version of this file under the MPL, indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice and other provisions required by the [___] License. If you do not delete the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this file under either the MPL or the [___] License."

NOTE: The text of this Exhibit A may differ slightly from the text of the notices in the Source Code files of the Original Code. You should use the text of this Exhibit A rather than the text found in the Original Code Source Code for Your Modifications.

A

EXHIBIT A -Mozilla Public License.

BEGIN NOTICE

This file is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License version 2.0 (the “License”). You can obtain a copy of the License at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.

END NOTICE

You may add additional accurate notices of copyright ownership.

If You are the initial Contributor, and wish to take advantage of Section 13 of this License, you may add the following text to the notice:

Alternative ly, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of [LICENSE NAME].

“[LICENSE NAME]” should be replaced with the name of the additional license(s) chosen by the initial Contributor.

1 The definition of Commercial Use was used in only one place and is now defined directly in that place in the body of the license.

2 The new 1.1(a) expands ‘Contributor’ to include the party initially releasing the code, thereby replacing MPL 1.1’s Section 1.6, ‘Initial Developer’. The previous definition defined initial developer in terms of their identification in the source code notice; the new language more generically defines it as the party who makes the software available under the license.

3 Throughout the license, for readability, ‘Original Code’ and ‘Covered Code’ have been changed to ‘Original Software’ and ‘Covered Software.’

4 The use of ‘if any’ here clarifies that this can apply to the first non-initial Contributor.

5 No longer used, because of the simplification of notification and distribution requirements.

6 The concept of ‘Initial Developer’ has been removed from the license. See the Discussion for more details.

7 The text beginning with ‘which would be infringed’ is moved here from the section on Termination (MPL 1.1 Sec. 8, now MPL 2 Sec. 6) to improve readability.

8 The reference to compliance is removed to make clear that conditions which must be met by ‘You’ cannot be avoided by non-compliance with other requirements.

9 Because the section on New Versions includes the ability to use the Source Code under future versions of the license, this language was redundant.

10 All license grants, not just those in this license, may be ‘subject to third party intellectual property claims’, so this language was unnecessary.

11 This has been moved to part (d) of this section, for readability.

12 This language is similar in content and intent to, and replaces, MPL 1.1’s Section 3.4(c).

13 “including without limitation Section 2.2” is removed, but is implicitly part of the requirements of the new 3.2 (“Distribution of Source Form”).

14 Because the section on New Versions includes the ability to use the Source Code under future versions of the license, this language was redundant. No change to the meaning of the license is intended.

15 The proposed Section 3.3(a) is similar in intent to MPL 1.1’s Section 3.2 and parts of 3.6. 3.2’s requirements for specific lengths of time and specific mechanisms are replaced by ‘reasonable means’ language, but similar effect is intended.

16 The proposed Section 3.3(b) is similar in intent to the third sentence of MPL 1.1’s Section 3.6.

17 The proposed Section 3.3(c) is similar in intent to MPL 1.1’s Section 3.7 (‘Larger Works’).

18 Language with similar content and intent is now in Section 2.2.

19 These requirements are simplified and moved to Section 3.3.

20 These permissions are simplified and moved to Section 3.3(c).

21 Moved from Section 8. Substantially unchanged at this time aside from small changes for renumbering and removal of Initial Developer; as indicated in the Discussion we will be working on this section for the next draft.

22 Renumbered from 9 to 8 after movement of Termination from 8 to 6.

23 The old Section 10 is deliberately removed; for more detail see the Discussion.

24 We continue to investigate venue and choice of law; for more details see the Discussion.


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )