<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Maria<br>
<br>
I think it's possible
that the person describing the use case to you uses words differently
than the MPL does.
If so, there might be an easy answer.<br>
>From the use case described to you, I can imagine a setting where the
JAR file is included as a separate <i><b>source</b></i> file and is
sent to and assembled by a
browser along with a bunch of other proprietary files that together
make up a web application. If this is the case then the MPL shouldn't
affect the other proprietary files. <br>
<br>
To know if this is the case we could all probably use a deeper
understanding of what "proprietary
web application files" are and where things are assembled and run. <br>
<br>
More specifically, <br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>it's possible that the people describing this to you mean
"assembled and run<i><b> in the browser.</b></i>" If so, this is true
of all content the browser displays and something that doesn't matter
so much to the analysis.</li>
<li>Does "proprietary web applications files" mean something like a
web application framework or a set of directories composed of many
distinct files? </li>
<li>If so, is the use case dropping the JAR file into this framework
or directory structure?</li>
<li>If so, are the lines of code in the JAR file combined <i><b>within
the same source code file</b></i> as other code?</li>
</ul>
<br>
If the JAR file is included as a separate source file and is sent to a
browser along with a bunch of other proprietary files, then the MPL
wasn't intended affect the other proprietary files. If the MPL code
is included in the same *source code* file then the setting is
different. <br>
<br>
To get closer to your specific question, the thinking behind 1.9 (b)
is that 1.9(a) says any change to an existing MPL file is a
Modification. An
easy way to avoid that is to copy a bunch of stuff from a file (which
doesn't result to a change in that file) and past it into a new file
then make additions. I don't think we ever made a distinction as to
whether what was combined with the MPL code was pre-existing or not.
So if the use case in question turns out to be that MPL code is being
combined in the <b>same source file</b> with other code I don't think
the timing of which code (MPL or other) was created first would seem to
matter.<br>
<br>
Does this help?<br>
<br>
And of course, this is not intended as legal advice, or creating an
legal representation, etc.<br>
<br>
mitchell<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/2/10 1:54 PM, Maria Magliano wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:029301cad2a6$a6272db0$f2758910$@com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi!
The use case described to me is that the MPL-covered code (a JAR file) will
be embedded (unmodified) into pre-existing proprietary web application files
that are then assembled and run. Doesn't this mean that both of the
scenarios you describe apply? I'd be interested in your take under either
scenario if you think it makes a difference in terms of how the license
applies to the resulting combination.
Best,
Maria
-----Original Message-----
From: Luis Villa [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:lvilla@mozilla.com">mailto:lvilla@mozilla.com</a>]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 1:08 PM
To: Smith, McCoy
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:maria@aet-law.com">maria@aet-law.com</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a>
Subject: Re: What does "new" mean in Section 1.9 (b) of the MPL v 1.1.?
On 4/2/10 12:50 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Since MPL is undergoing revision right now, you might want to post your
question on the revision site: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mpl.mozilla.org/">http://mpl.mozilla.org/</a> If that section
is unclear, they'd probably want to clarify it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
We're also lurking here in case of questions like this, for what it is
worth.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">*From:* Maria Magliano [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:maria@aet-law.com">mailto:maria@aet-law.com</a>]
*Sent:* Friday, April 02, 2010 12:48 PM
*To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a>
*Subject:* What does "new" mean in Section 1.9 (b) of the MPL v 1.1.?
Hi Everyone!
I'm trying to understand what the term "new" means in the MPL definition
of a "Modification" in Section 1.9. (b) (I reproduce the entire
definition below for reference). Does "new" mean a file that, apart from
the MPL-covered code, did not exist previously (i.e. anywhere in the
universe?) or, does it also mean a file that may already exist but was
not previously combined with MPL-covered code (so that "new" refers to
the novel combination of the two)? I'm trying to make sure that
pre-existing proprietary code is not considered as being "new" under
that subsection by being combined with MPL-covered code for the first
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">time.
I have added a comment to our commenting tool to reflect the ambiguity
in the use of 'new' here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mpl.co-ment.com/text/NMccndsidpP/view/?comment_id_key=kZDPJ6wstkI">https://mpl.co-ment.com/text/NMccndsidpP/view/?comment_id_key=kZDPJ6wstkI</a>
It might help the discussion if you elaborated a bit on what you say
when you meant 'combined... for the first time'- do you mean that the
pre-existing proprietary code will be compiled together with the
MPL-covered code? Or do you mean that copyrightable material from the
MPL-covered code will be copied and pasted into the pre-existing
proprietary code?
Luis
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>