4 ms·
> Less scandalously, they use a non-standard licence for no clear reason. What are you talking about? Who defines "standard" for licenses?
by sgift 9y ago
> Less scandalously, they use a non-standard licence for no clear reason.
What are you talking about? Who defines "standard" for licenses?
- MaxBarraclough 9y agoThe Mozilla Public License is not a standard licence. If you don't understand why it's unhelpful to muddy the waters with non-standard licences, here's a blog post: https://ben.balter.com/2016/08/01/why-you-shouldnt-write-your-own-open-source-license/ https://ben.balter.com/2016/08/01/why-you-shouldnt-write-you...
- vintagedave 9y agoThe MPL is very widely used. By what or whose standards is it a "non-standard license"? It's listed in the OpenSource.org list of approved OS licenses: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses Your link is about writing your own open source license, not about which licenses are standard. Nowhere in that blog is any mention of Mozilla. I am not sure what you are trying to say by linking to it.
- MaxBarraclough 9y agoYou got me - it's more recognised than I thought. Wikipedia tells me it's a copyleft licence, but one that's 'weaker' than the GPL.