Talk:Mozilla Public License

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: 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)
thread_title:  MPL Future 

message: 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:
# Mentioning OpenSolaris
# The process boundary of the GPL
# 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)
thread_title:  Version 2.0 & Article Rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relation to Apache 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any other "non-infective" copyleft license? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  <cite>Notable users</cite> section considered unnotable? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080628174020/http://www.mozilla.org/mozilla-at-one.html to http://www.mozilla.org/mozilla-at-one.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105015147/http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.0M-FAQ.html to http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.0M-FAQ.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified