MPL Beta 1 Section 10 is an additional permission, not a restriction

[Carlo Piana]

On 12/06/2010 11:38 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 11/23/10 2:21 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
>> If, however, the sole purpose of your Section 11 is to *limit*
>> combinations
>> of MPL 2 software only to GPL- and/or MPL-licensed Larger Works,
>> you'll have
>> to say that more clearly. But then your license won't pass the OSD
>> tests.
>
> Our intent is that Beta 1 Section 10 (was Section 11) is an additional
> permission on top of the base, OSI-compatible file-level copyleft. It
> therefore allows those who believe that GPL and MPL are incompatible
> to use MPL files in a GPL-licensed Larger Work.
>
> If (like Larry) you do not believe that the GPL requires such
> permission, or are using some other copyleft license with a limited
> scope, you don't have to take advantage of Section 10, and can instead
> rely on the permissions granted by 3.3(c)/1.6.
>
> I hope this clarifies this particular issue.
>
> Luis

I wholeheartedly agree with Luis. This has always been my interpretation
and I am quite surprised we have had such a long discussion on this
clause, which should be a non-issue IMHO.

Again I have written a longer message on this topic, but because here we
are discussing the MPL I have moderated myself because the content was
not pertinent to the thread and possibly to the list.

With best regards,

Carlo