Licensing concerns (MPL vs. LDP)

["Matthew P. Barnson" <barnboy@imall.com>]

Greetings!
  I'm new to this list; please point me to a FAQ if there is one for this 
particular question (I did not find this question covered in the LDP guide).

  I am the documentation maintainer for Bugzilla, the Mozilla bug-tracking 
system.  It's in use many places (Apache.org, Redhat.com, Loki Games to name 
a few), but has seriously lacked documentation.  I'm attempting to make this 
tool as widespread as possible by converting existing documentation to SGML 
and a single document, rather than the little scattered documentation we 
have, and submitting it to the LDP so it's included with future distributions 
of Linux and is an easily-located resource for bug-tracking pundits.

  The documentation I have heretofore written is covered under the Mozilla 
Public License (MozPL or MPL).  Do you know of any conflict between the MPL 
and LDP submission guidelines?  The LDP simply says you may not use a "more 
restrictive" license than the LDP guidelines for submission to the LDP, but 
I'm not sure if a license such as the MPL qualifies.

  Please note: Because of current corporate concerns with Bugzilla 
maintainers, the documentation cannot currently be licensed under the GPL or 
Gnu Free Documentation License.

  Thank you in advance for your assistance.


-- 
Matthew P. Barnson        Manager, Systems Administration
Excite@Home                 mbarnson@excitehome.net


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org