MPL 2 section 11

Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel patrice-emmanuel.schmitz at be.unisys.com
Thu Nov 25 10:17:23 UTC 2010


Then Larry, what to think from the OSI-approved EUPL provision that states:

"If the Licensee Distributes and/or Communicates Derivative Works or copies thereof based upon both the Original Work and another work licensed under a Compatible Licence, this Distribution and/or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence. For the sake of this clause, "Compatible Licence" refers to the licences listed in the appendix attached to this Licence."

This targets combined works isn't? And the compatible license list mentions only 5 other copyleft licenses (and not all OSI-approved, because many EUPL licensors are administrations refusing the risk to pay for a proprietary application including components that they have licensed for free). This provision could be interpreted by recipients (just like the criticised MPL 2 section 11) that license conflict exist when distributing an application  combining software covered by another copyleft license... 

So, if I understand your opinion correctly, if a combination is done between - for example - software covered by the EUPL and by the GPLv3 (not on the compatible license list), no litigation will follow is the whole combined application is distributed under the EUPL?
  
(I apologize to mix "personal" questions in the MPL debate, hoping this is interesting for all... All opinions here were high quality so far!)
  
>Lawrence Rosen wrote (answering to Andy Wilson):
> > Andy Wilson wrote:
> > Larry, facts are not with you.  There is already an OSI-approved license
> > which permits only combinations of covered code with code under a
> > specific set of licenses.
> > That would be the RPSL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/real.php).
> 
> Read that license carefully. It does not say that "combination" is the
> triggering act, but rather uses in such a way as "to form a larger
> Derivative Work" (RPSL section 4.2).
> 
> I have no problem the MPL 2 trying to be consistent with the demands of
> the
> GPL (and many other reciprocal licenses) when one forms a larger
> *derivative
> work*. Perhaps MPL 2 should say explicity that it will allow licensees to
> create derivative GPL works from works that start out under MPL 2. But to
> imply that mere *combinations of software* create reciprocal obligations
> is
> promoting FOSS fiction.
> 
> You will note that even the RPSL license authors knew they were tackling a
> difficult problem. The last sentence of section 4.2 reveals their
> discomfort:
> 
>    "You are responsible for determining whether your use of software with
>     Covered Code is allowed under Your license to such software."
> 
> They even added a special footnote to the license to disclaim interpretive
> value:
> 
>    Note: because this license contains certain reciprocal licensing terms
>    that purport to extend to independently developed code, You may be
>    prohibited under the terms of this otherwise compatible license from
>    using code licensed under its terms with Covered Code because Covered
>    Code may only be licensed under the RealNetworks Public Source License.
>    Any attempt to apply non RPSL license terms, including without
> limitation
>    the GPL, to Covered Code is expressly forbidden. You are responsible
> for
>    ensuring that Your use of Compatible Source Licensed code does not
> violate
>    either the RPSL or the Compatible Source License.
> 
> I do not believe the RPSL ever found much favor in the wider community.
> Upon
> rereading section 4.2 many years later, I can understand why.
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wilson, Andrew [mailto:andrew.wilson at intel.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:48 AM
> > To: Lawrence Rosen; 'OSI License Review'
> > Subject: RE: MPL 2 section 11
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Larry, facts are not with you.  There is already an OSI-approved
> > license
> > which permits only combinations of covered code with code under a
> > specific set of licenses.
> > That would be the RPSL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/real.php).
> > See the definition of Compatible Source License in 1.2 and the license
> > grant for Derivative Works in section 4.2.
> > Unless you are suggesting OSI should break with precedent?
> >
> > > Section 11 of the new MPL ought to be
> > > particularly clear about what it allows and what it forbids.
> >
> > Agreed.  This is why I initiated this thread, and why it is helpful to
> > stay
> > on topic.
> >
> > Andy Wilson
> > Intel open source technology center
> >
> 




More information about the License-review mailing list