MPL Beta 2 released- please continue informal review

[Luis Villa]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:20 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Luis Villa scripsit:
>
>> Assuming You are the party who combines the MPL work with the GPL
>> work, You can't directly make a GPL-only copy; you must "make sure the
>> requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software"-
>> i.e., You must effectively dual-license.
>
> Ah yes, I meant to complain about that wording.  It suggests that You
> must make sure that the requirements of this License are fulfilled *by
> everyone*, including Your downstream licensees.  I suggest "You must
> fulfill the requirements of this License" as a better wording.

Hrm, that may make sense; thanks for the suggestion.

>> Someone who gets it from You can then use it under GPL-only terms if
>> they'd like, though.
>
> Under the GPLv3, at least, since restrictive additional terms can be
> stripped.

Under any multi-license, given the traditional interpretation of
multi-licensing as allowing the distribution under all or only one of
the licenses.

>> > Can I instead dual-license the Larger Work under MPL+GPL,
>> > assuming there are no other GPL-only components?
>>
>> There must be a GPL-only component, since you must "combin[e] the
>> Covered Software with a work governed by a Secondary License."
>
> Why couldn't the other component be a GPL+MPL dual licensed component?
> You don't say "exclusively governed".

Noted.

Luis