<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/17 5:08 PM, Magnus Melin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:70d0143e-dc06-0d50-7bcb-980dfffa574d@iki.fi">On
12.4.2017 02:06, Óvári wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Why did R Kent James demand CardBook
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/addon/cardbook/"><https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/addon/cardbook/></a>
be licensed under MPL
<br>
then? Zero win for CardBook...
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">LibreOffice
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.libreoffice.org/"><https://www.libreoffice.org/></a> seems to be working, why
not copy
<br>
their licensing model?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
They are actually using the MPLv2, like Thunderbird.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
Matt
</body>
</html>