Larger Works in MPL

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

This is a difficult question to answer. The term "larger work" has no
copyright significance. The options you note seem correct, but using a
single license for covered code and your own code will require a skillfully
written license to avoid potential difficulties. You may be up to the task,
but an easier way is to use both licenses. Of course, the licenses must be
consistent; otherwise,  the end user or licensee may not be able to make
lawful use of your program. The issue really is what are you trying to
accomplish by using a single or a separate license. Set up your goal first
and then it may be more apparent which choice is better.

Rod

___________________________________
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law
Camden
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org

General Counsel
FreeBuyers Net, LLC
dixon at freebuyersnet.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. Yip [mailto:weng at yours.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 10:21 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Larger Works in MPL
>
>
> I have been reading the MPL and I have one question.
>
> Qu: After combining covered code with my own code to form a 'larger work',
> do I have discretion as to what license I distribute this larger work
> under? (I am aware I have to be in compliance with the terms governing
> distribution of executable versions [1], which mainly have some
> criteria to
> be satisfied for covered code only.)
>
> It seems to me that after I create a 'larger work', I can
> redistribute this
> larger work  either:
>
> (i) under a *single* license of my choice and on my own terms, but however
> such terms must comply with those criteria regarding covered code; or
>
> (ii) under two licenses. One is the MPL for the covered code portions and
> another is a license of my choice and on my own terms which comply with
> those criteria regarding covered code.
>
> Which is correct?
>
> [1] s.3.6 MPL
>
> Quote" You may distribute the Executable Version of the Covered Code or
> ownership rights under a license of your choice, which may contain terms
> different from this license, provided that you are in complaince with the
> terms of this license and that the license for the executable version does
> not attempt to limit or alter the recipients rights in the source code
> version from the rights set forth in this license. If you distribute the
> executable version under a different license you must make it absolutely
> clear that any terms which differ from this license are offered by you
> alone, not by the initial developer or any contributor."
>
> where
>
> "executable" is defined in s. 1.5 MPL as "covered code in any form other
> than  source code". For present purposes, I have understood  an
> "executable" version of covered code to be contained in the 'larger work'.
>
>
>
>
>
>