MPL 2 section 11

[Luis Villa]

On 11/22/10 2:15 PM, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
>
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
>> This is the optional notice that MPL 2 (Alpha 3) specifies in Exhibit A:
>>
>>
>>
>>     Pursuant to Section 11, this file may be distributed as part of a
>>
>>     Larger Work licensed under the GPL or LGPL.
>>
>   <snip>
>> You don't need Section 11 to make that Exhibit A statement true. Apparently
>> you do need FSF's blessing on it, however, since their opinion carries much
>> weight here.
>
> You certainly don't /need/ FSF's blessing for your license -- but I'd think you'd very
> much want them to put MPL 2 with Ex. A permissions on their list of "compatible" licenses,
> if the intent is to replace the Mozilla tri-license
> (which is incontrovertibly GPL-compatible by dint of, well, being GPL-licensed
> in addition to MPL and LGPL-licensed).

To clarify, two notes on our goals:

1) We'd like to retire the tri-license and allow others to do the same; 
Beta 1 will have language making that "upgrade path" more explicit.

2) Just as we're asking OSI, we're also asking FSF to be on their lists 
of Libre and compatible licenses, and have spoken with them to that end.

Luis

-- 
Luis Villa, Mozilla Legal
work email: lvilla at mozilla.com (preferred)
work phone: 650-903-0800 x327
personal: http://tieguy.org/about/