Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by richardfontana 1028 days ago
Disclosure: I'm on the CNCF legal committee, which mainly makes recommendations to the CNCF board on things like exceptions to CNCF's fairly strict licensing policy.

This is correct, but I believe MPL has never been approved as a main project license for a CNCF project before, as opposed to a license of a third party dependency (the default rule is that such projects must be under the Apache License 2.0). FWIW I would not hesitate to support such a request for a policy exception.
2 comments
bcantrill 1028 days ago
That's great to hear. We at Oxide are huge fans of the MPLv2 and it's our default license for everything; I think it's reasonable that the default expectation for CNCF is Apache 2.0, but would love for MPLv2 to also be considered a first-class license!
link
_msw_ 1028 days ago
In my personal opinion, there's no good reason to have a license policy at the CNCF, or any Linux Foundation directed fund, that makes using copyleft licenses so burdensome, especially when they are as "weak" as MPL 2.0 is.

I know that there are Reasons. I just don't think they are good ones.

link
richardfontana 1028 days ago
I agree, though that probably would not shock you. :)
link