Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License?

[David Ascher]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
> 
> Thanks to all those who have responded to this inquiry I made about
> Komodo and the MPL.  Thanks especially to David Ascher, who provided
> some greater details on how Komodo works.

You're welcome!

> My current understanding is the following.  Mozilla proper is not
> actually part of what Komodo is.  Rather, Mozilla is somewhere between a
> library and a server (it implements a component object model called
> XPCOM).  Mozilla, as such, is covered by the MPL.  Komodo proper is a
> different software package, one that makes XPCOM calls as part of its
> functionality.  In principle, one could use a different version of
> Mozilla than that included in the Komodo installer; or even (in some
> distant future) an alternate implementation of XPCOM.  I doubt such
> principled alternatives would be easy to get installed though.  All the
> code inside Komodo proper was written by ActiveState; and they therefore
> have a legal right to license it under a "pay us $295 per year" license.

That's roughly correct (there's more than just XPCOM calls involved, but
that's the general gist).

> In other words, ActiveState is in the clear with the MPL in terms of the
> derived source code issue.  That was my primary concern, and an
> explanation clears it up.  I do, however, wish that either ActiveState's
> webpages, or something in the installer, would make it a bit more clear
> what the relation between Komodo and Mozilla is.

Good point.  I'll make sure that happens.  Thanks for bringing it up.

> A secondary MPL license issue still seems not quite right, however.
> Downloading Komodo provides a binary version of Mozilla as part of the
> jig.  In doing that, one should receive "prominent notice" (or something
> like that) as to how one might obtain the source code for the binary you
> are downloading.  It is possible that what I downloaded actually did
> have some kind of README buried somewhere concerning this, but if so, it
> is easy to miss.  It would also seem rather appropriate to post such
> prominent notice somewhere on the web pages that discuss Komodo.  The
> impression one gets in reading about Komodo is that it *includes*
> Mozilla; and therefore that one is licensing more than one actually is
> by buying the commercial subscription.  But the source *is* available at
> mozilla.org, in fact, so this is a more minor issue.

I'll see what we can do to make this clearer.  In the short term, we can
certainly update our web pages.  In the longer term, we'll try and make
it clearer in the installation package itself.

> However, despite the probable legality of Komodo's license, my own
> opinion is that ActiveState would be a lot more likable with a more
> community-oriented license.  

Likable, probably -- but also, very possibly, out of business.  We
(ActiveState) are in the fairly unusual position of trying to be both
valued community members and a successful business at the same time. 
There are still few businesses trying to do this, and even fewer
successful businesses.  Thanks for your patience as we continually
evolve our business model to fit with the communities we serve as well
as satisfy the needs of running a business (which includes paying people
=).

-- David Ascher