Mozilla Public License 2 Alpha 3; request for early review prior to formal submission for approval

[Bruce Perens]

I think you both have it wrong.

The terms of the GPL apply to the entire work in ways you're not
considering. For example, a mono-license BSD work would not have any
source-code conveyance requirement, but the mixed BSD and GPL work must
have the source-code conveyance terms applied to the entire work
regardless of the governing license of any one component.

     Thanks

     Bruce

On 11/19/2010 10:02 PM, John Cowan wrote:
 > Rick Moen scripsit:
 >
 >
 >>> Sorry, but in this scenario I clearly posit the case where Bob creates
 >>> not simply an archive but a linked executable which is distributed
 >>> under GPL, thus triggering GPL requirements to release the complete
 >>> corresponding source under GPL. (to Carol)
 >>>
 >> I'm with John Cowan: This seems like just the urban legend that refuses
 >> to die.
 >>
 >> Specific performance is not even available as a remedy for copyright
 >> violation. Plaintiff gets to enjoin further infringement, plus (if the
 >> work is registered) some degree of monetary damages.
 >>
 > You and Andy are on different tracks. The issue that Andy and I
 > are discussing does not have to do with having to release source, and
 > what the remedies are if you don't. It has to do with whether you are
 > required to release the source *under the GPL* when parts of it are
 > under a permissive license.
 >
 > The wording of GPLv3 Section 6 is: "You may convey a covered work in
 > object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you
 > also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source /under the terms
 > of this License/" (emphasis added). This suggests that *all* the source
 > must be GPLed. That isn't, on the surface, consistent with the normal
 > liberty to mix GPL and permissive code in the same "corresponding 
source".
 >
 > The corresponding wording of GPLv2 Section 3-3a is: "You may copy
 > and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2)
 > in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
 > above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it
 > with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which
 > must be distributed /under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above/"
 > (emphasis added). Same issue.
 >
 > Now if the GPL really requires that *each* part of the source be under
 > the GPL, then it would be necessary to make a derived work out of the
 > BSD parts and release those derived works under the GPL. But nobody
 > thinks that.
 >
 >