MPL 2 section 11

[Lawrence Rosen]

Dear all,

I would prefer that folks not twist my words to make other arguments or draw
extraneous conclusions. I have no intention to be the Grinch that stole
Christmas or the "bad boy who killed the GPL." Nothing I said in this thread
criticized the GPL, and I commented merely on the FSF FAQ that purports to
interpret it but makes incorrect statements.

But Josh is right; we've strayed far from the topic. With respect to MPL
section 11, I suggested that the concept of "combinations" be replaced with
"derivative works." I would have no quarrel with MPL section 11 if it read
something like this:

   "If you (Licensee) prefer to distribute your derivative works of this MPL
2
    software under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 rather than MPL 2, you have my
(Licensor's) 
    permission to do so."

Note that this doesn't require any "extra permissions" from the GPL folks,
nor does it address the question of why someone would want to do so. 

I believe that the authors of the GPL correctly intended to refer in this
context to "derivative works" rather than "combinations". It is MPL 2
section 11 that has strayed too far from that.

That's easy to fix.

As to my original comment about MPL section 11 and the GPL FAQ that the word
"combinations" goes way too far: If that proves true when/if tested in
court, the most that will happen is that the GPL will have a different
interpretation. That won't be the end. It will merely mean that the world
can combine GPL code with other code through linking without worrying about
being infected. Just like they can with MPL 2 code!

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:34 PM
> To: John Cowan
> Cc: Tzeng, Nigel H.; Joel Rees; OSI License Review
> Subject: Re: MPL 2 section 11
> 
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:06 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org>
> wrote:
> [...]
> > As I said, no one wants to be the bad boy who killed the GPL.
> 
> How about the GPL defendants and respondents (e.g. see SDNY
> 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co.,
> Inc. et alibi)?
> 
> The end is coming soon, I think.
> 
> The context:
> 
> http://www.terekhov.de/131.pdf
> http://www.terekhov.de/155.pdf
> http://www.terekhov.de/159.pdf
> 
> The essence:
> 
> -----
> to rweigel at gibsondunn.com, ogarza at gibsondunn.com
> subject SDNY 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v.
> Best Buy Co., Inc. et al
> 
> Congrats with denial order to join respondent CMA.
> 
> I hope you'll follow on your promise to (public and creditors):
> 
> "to recover all reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees,
> related thereto."
> 
> ASAP.
> 
> Full quote from Case 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Document 146 Filed 09/20/10:
> 
> "Plaintiffs have forced CMA to needlessly waste estate resources on
> this Motion, and CMA reserves its right to recover all reasonable
> expenses, including attorneys' fees, related thereto."
> 
> TIA.
> -----
> 
> regards,
> alexander.