MPL 2 section 11

[Joel Rees]

On 平成 22/11/25, at 1:54, John Cowan wrote:

> [...]
> 4) Therefore anyone can make such a work as long as they have the  
> legal
> right to distribute the individual sources, which all OSS licenses
> guarantee.  The GPL's attempt to prevent it as a breach of  
> copyright is
> therefore unenforceable as a matter of law.

I'm lost here. Please unpack "he GPL's attempt to prevent it as a  
breach of copyright".

Somehow, what you're saying here sounds (to me?) as if you're arguing  
that the GPL is an interpretation of copyright law, rather than a  
license, unilaterally offered in the framework of copyright law, in  
the absence of which the only recourse is fair use (unless other  
license is arranged with the copyright owners, separately, which  
would invoke a separate web of rights entanglements).

Or are you arguing that the MPL 2 in its present form conflicts with  
the GPL in such a way that, when combined with works under the GPL,  
the MPL can't enforce license requirements on compilations (as  
opposed to more direct modifications)?

> (I may have gotten some details wrong, but this is how I understand  
> it.)
>
> There is a similar Lawyer/Pragmatist argument over the ability of a
> project leader to unilaterally change the copyright on a truly  
> joint work.
> Lawyer (Cathy Olanich Raymond) says that any joint author can  
> license a
> joint work on any terms he likes, provided they are responsible to the
> other joint authors for lost profits (in this case, $0).   
> Pragmatist (me
> and others) replies that this should never be done even so, using the
> same arguments as above.


Are you saying that the MPL 2 in it's current form can only be  
interpreted in the above two ways? (Other licenses, the GPL included,  
would put the set of options somewhere between, depending, in part,  
on copyright assignments, whether all the principle copyright holders  
can be contacted and induced to give or withhold permission, etc.)

Joel Rees