On 13/03/10 21:52, Francesco Poli wrote:
However, the license text to be commented is *not* identical to the official text of the MPL version 1.1 [2]. [1] http://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/ [2] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt (as far as I know) The differences (as shown by wdiff) are not purely cosmetic. For instance, Section 8.2(b) in the official version [2] states [...] | any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(b) | and 2.2(b) are revoked [...] while the same Section in the to-be-commented text [1] states [...] | any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(a) | and 2.2(b) are revoked [...] which is *not* the same: please note "2.1(a)" instead of "2.1(b)"!
Goodness me. Well spotted :-) As far as I can see, all other witnesses I can find have the former text, and only the to-be-commented text has the latter. Reading the licence, the former text looks correct (2.1(b) is about patents, but 2.1(a) is not).
I will enquire as to what happened, and hopefully get the draft-for-comment corrected.
I used wdiff myself (great tool!) and it seems to me that the only potentially significant changes between the two files you name are this one, and the replacement of an "NPL" by "MPL" in section 13, which looks to be like a belated correction when the NPL was "turned into" the MPL during the drafting process. Are there any other differences you see as significant?
Gerv