MPL 2 section 11

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 11/23/10 11:17 AM, "Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel"
<patrice-emmanuel.schmitz at be.unisys.com> wrote:

> John Cowan scripsit:
> 
>> Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel scripsit:
>> 
>>> I naively believe that option 2 is the right one from MF point of
>>> view and that the value of FOSS software increases when it is the most
>>> widely used, not when restricting this freedom of use.
>> 
>> Well, that's why permissive licenses exist, but the MPL is not one
>> of them.
> 
> Exactly, John! This is the reason why interoperability must be implemented
> between the most used copyleft licenses, meaning MPL, OSL, GPL, EUPL, Eclipse.
> The list is small and there is no need for extending to permissive licenses,
> which have their own utility and do not have copyleft conflict issues.

They still have copyleft conflict issues in as much as copylefted open
source can often not be reused on permissive open source projects due to the
license.

Solving copyleft incompatibilities with GPL has only in favor of GPL and not
with MPL anyway.  The FSF has shown no indication that compatibility with
other copyleft is even a desirable trait except when it is in their favor.

Personally, I would prefer MPL to provide compatibility with other open
source licenses that reciprocates compatibility.  I don't see the need to
needlessly explicitly perpetuate one-way sharing.