MPL 2 section 11

[Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel]

Tzeng, Nigel H. Scripsit:

>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. 

Nigel point of view is in most cases understandable and reasonable, however this may be "a bridge too far" at least in a first step: I have some doubts that the FSF will accept (or even imagine :-) reciprocity with permissive licenses, because of the risk of software appropriation. The reason why the European Commission opted for a copyleft license (EUPL) is similar: administrations refuse the risk (even if quite theoretical) to pay proprietary royalties for a combined work that would include components that they produced once under the EUPL. Therefore, the EUPL compatibility list is limited to licenses with a comparable copyleft.
Sharing the proposal of Simon Phipps, MPL 2 compatibility with (copyleft) licenses that are "popular and widely used or with strong communities" according to the OSI report would already be a fantastic progress. 
Best regards,
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
Legal expert, www.osor.eu