What issue does the Mozilla Public License have with the European Legal System?

Question

I was quite surprised to see the following in an answer: (emphasis mine)

For new projects, you should avoid the MPL as it has issues with the European law system. For this reason, the CDDL can be seen as the successor of the MPL.

Given that both licenses disallow to change the license but limit their scopt to files, you are still allowed to combine files under different licenses to make them together compile a single work.

Given that I was planning on using the Mozilla Public License as a licensing option for a new project that I was writing, this is a bit of a blow for me. I was planning on using it, especially since it's emerging in the 'open source market.'

What part of the Mozilla Public License is an issue with the European legal system? As the Mozilla Public License and the Common Development and Distribution License are fundamentally the same, how does the CDDL rectify the legal issue with the European legal system?

Answer 1

I have no idea, but I found this post about MPL-2.0 revision:

Internationalization

Mozilla has always tried to be a global project, but we were aware that the MPL had some clauses that made non-American users less comfortable with the license. One of these was the section on U.S. Government End Users. This was intended to protect the interests of all contributors to MPL-licensed projects, not just Americans, but to a non-lawyer (and even to many European lawyers) the meaning of the section was opaque. Our legal research, and the experience of the past 10 years, suggested it could be removed without impacting the U.S. government's procurement process, and so we did so. Similarly, we've discussed every draft with FSF Europe's European Legal Network, to help ensure that the new language works across jurisdictions, and brought the jurisdiction language into closer alignment with the practices of other open source licenses.

AFAIK, CDDL is based on older MPL-1.1 revision.