MPL 2 section 11

Lawrence Rosen lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Thu Nov 25 17:11:25 UTC 2010


I have no quarrel with the EUPL that refers to "Derivative Works or copies
thereof based upon both the Original Work and another work licensed under a
Compatible License...."

The MPL 2, on the other hand, uses different words. It says, "if You create
a Larger Work by combining Compatible Software with a work governed by a
Secondary License...." My argument is with the word "combining", which
leaves the erroneous impression that merely combining two works affects
their licenses. That nonsense has been spewed by the FSF for too long and
ought not be echoed in new licenses.

Precision in words matters!

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel [mailto:patrice-
> emmanuel.schmitz at be.unisys.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:17 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosen; 'OSI License Review'
> Subject: RE: MPL 2 section 11
> 
> 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