MPL 2 section 11

[Lawrence Rosen]

Andy Wilson wrote:
> I think it's pretty clear #1 and #9 are about the freedom to create
> an anthology of heterogeneous code such as a typical Linux distribution
> -- not surprising, given the roots of OSD in the Debian principles.
> I don't see anything in MPL2 which would restrict use of covered code
> in a distro.


Nor do I. I think that the proposed MPL 2 license (with the possible
exception of Section 11) is fully compliant with the OSD.

My point is that the supposed additional permission in Section 11 allowing
us to "combine" MPL code with GPL code is entirely unnecessary. More
ominously, it leaves the incorrect impression that *only* such combinations
are allowed, but in fact *all* open source software can be so combined. No
OSI-approved license could forbid such combinations.

A "combination" is not a derivative work! You and others here use words like
"anthology" and "heterogenous" and "typical Linux distribution" in sloppy
ways. If we stick to the words and concepts that are in copyright law, we
might write clearer licenses. Section 11 of the new MPL ought to be
particularly clear about what it allows and what it forbids.

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wilson, Andrew [mailto:andrew.wilson at intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:30 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosen; 'OSI License Review'
> Subject: RE: MPL 2 section 11
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> 
> > Andy Wilson asked:
> >> Which OSD tests are you thinking of?
> >
> > Quoting from http://www.opensource.org/osd.html:
> >
> > OSD # 1. Free Redistribution
> >
> > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
> the
> > software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
> containing
> > programs from several different sources. The license shall not
> require a
> > royalty or other fee for such sale.
> >
> > OSD # 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
> >
> > The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
> > distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the
> license must
> > not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
> must be
> > open-source software.
> 
> Larry, I think it's pretty clear #1 and #9 are about the freedom to
> create
> an anthology of heterogeneous code such as a typical Linux distribution
> --
> not surprising, given the roots of OSD in the Debian principles.
> I don't see anything in MPL2 which would restrict use of covered code
> in a distro.
> 
> Andy Wilson
> Intel open source technology center