MPL 2 section 11

[Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel]

On Nov 22, 2010, at 11:49, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 
> If the notice listed above were to say "this file may be distributed as
> part of a Larger Work licensed under any OSI-approved open source license"
> the service to the community would be even greater as there would then be
> a copyleft license available which was compatible with all other OSI-
> approved licenses.
> 
> S.

Without going so far (extending compatibility to *ALL* OSI-Approved licenses, which includes the most permissive ones), the concerns of Simon (and Larry) are right: the copyleft of the MPL2 should not prohibit distributing a combined work under another OSI-approved copyleft licence.

The use of these copyleft alternatives (to GPLs) is growing (not only the OSL): I reported the case of the EUPL to Luis. Why should they be discredited or "less equal"? 

It may good also to clarify that in such case, combined works are not trivial modifications, but combining components that are covered by different OSI-approved copyleft licences, and when a copyleft conflict exists.

Why not mentioning these other copyleft licenses, not in the license itself (section 11) but in a "FOSS copyleft exception list" that could be modified (meaning extended if needed) without modifying the licence?

Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
Legal expert, www.osor.eu