Joining forces vs. starting from scratch (was Re: Proposal to start a new implementation...)

Matt Harris at
Wed Apr 12 10:04:04 UTC 2017

On 4/12/17 5:08 PM, Magnus Melin wrote:
> On 12.4.2017 02:06, Óvári wrote:
>> Why did R Kent James demand CardBook
>> <> be licensed 
>> under MPL
>> then? Zero win for CardBook...
> Depends on the perspective and your goals for your code. Being license 
> compatible to core code makes it possible to include it in core. In 
> parts or as a whole. If inclusion of some sort is the goal, the 
> license needs to be compatible.
>> LibreOffice <> seems to be working, why 
>> not copy
>> their licensing model?
> They are actually using the MPLv2, like Thunderbird.
> As I see it the problem with MPL is that you don't have to provide 
> your whole derivative work as open source. Only the actual changes, 
> which makes porting a feature extremely impractical as the changes can 
> rely on other code which you don't have to provide.

I would prefer a license that requires any derivative to be open 
source.  That is a derivative mail client.  I have no issue with say a 
JS library being sucked into another project,  with only an attribution.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list