Talk:Mozilla Public License

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spelling[edit]

British spelling of "licence" vs American spelling of "license". Do we care, since Mozilla is based out of California? Andytuba (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPL Future[edit]

Perhaps there should be information on the latest version of the MPL?

See website: http://mpl.mozilla.org/ 203.171.97.75 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2.0 & Article Rewrite[edit]

Currently, the article mostly describes version 1.1 of the MPL, but with the recent upgrade to version 2.0, a lot of the information has changed. I've drawn up a rewrite to better reflect version 2.0, improve sections and attributions, and clear out things like dead links. I'm going to update the article by section, spaced out over several days to allow feedback, and then lastly tweak the formatting. If at first it seems like I've removed a fact, I probably just moved it to a new section. Besides extreme details about how version 1.1 worked, the only other facts I've cut are:

  1. Mentioning OpenSolaris
  2. The process boundary of the GPL
  3. Mentioning Netscape 6

The first could still be reached on the CDDL page, and it seemed to imply that OpenSolaris was Sun's only CDDL-licensed software. The last two are both interesting facts, but I couldn't find clear citations for either and thought the right wording and links should convey the "file boundary" and "propietary module" concepts fine. If anyone misses that info, we can copy and paste it back in from an older article version. Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Apache[edit]

Besides Version 3 of the GPL and several derivative licenses, the latest version of the Apache License was drafted after version 1.1 of the MPL. If you compare versions 2.0 and 1.1 of the Apache License, the revision definitely "looks" more like the MPL (legal structure, patent clauses, etc.) but I couldn't find anyone explicitly saying that the MPL influenced Apache License 2.0. Couldn't find much of anything about the Apache revision process for that matter. If someone knew where to find out if there was an influence, it might be an interesting fact to put in both this and the Apache License article. Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any other "non-infective" copyleft license?[edit]

I'm interested to know if there are other licenses that require perpetual copyleft for just the covered source code (without requirements on other source code components). I know LGPL permits combining works when done by the linker, but that sounds like a special case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.119.158 (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable users section considered unnotable?[edit]

I question if there is any encyclopedic value to keeping this section, or if it can be removed or rewritten in prose. The lead section already describes how Mozilla's software uses this license. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mozilla Public License/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 15:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to Review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead section has too many references - the lead is supposed to be a summary or an overview of the main text so it shouldn't have to have its statements referenced (since the sources are supposed to appear within the other sections of the article. Please adjust. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Reference #34 is faulty - too many redirects. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    References #25-#36 are basically bare URLs as references and, as such, will be more prone to linkrot. They need additional information, such as website, publisher, date accessed, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Half of the first paragraph in the "Terms" section appears to be unreferenced. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Ran the copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No edit wars. Yay. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    While images can be nice to have in an article, they are not a GA necessity. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This Review is now closed. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination as they do not have the time to work on the article at the moment. This withdrawal is in no way a reflection on the article's present quality or on the nominator. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mozilla Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UC Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mozilla_Public_License&oldid=1209227300"