MPL 2 section 11

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 11/23/10 1:34 PM, "Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel"
<patrice-emmanuel.schmitz at be.unisys.com> wrote:

> 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.

Sorry, I conflated the two issues.

While I would like to see the permissive/copyleft issue solved someday but I
really was thinking was that it would be nice for futureproofing if MPL ALSO
automatically provided compatibility with any OSI approved copyleft licenses
that reciprocates with MPL in addition to the explicit licenses listed like
GPL.  That way future versions of other OSI approved copylefts could include
reciprocity with MPL and no further MPL changes are required and there is
some incentive to do so.  At least it's not so much a one way street from
the perspective of MPL.  I understand why you'd explicitly put GPL on the
list because they aren't likely to ever reciprocate but other licenses might
decide it's worth a new version if given a nudge.

The implication is that OSI approval sufficiently limits the times where
silly things happens to the detriment of MPL that they don't have to provide
an exhaustive list of approved licenses to reciprocate with for their own
peace of mind. 

Whether that's a true assumption, I don't know. :)