MPL 2 section 11

[Lawrence Rosen]

Andy Wilson wrote:
> Larry, facts are not with you.  There is already an OSI-approved license
> which permits only combinations of covered code with code under a
> specific set of licenses.
> That would be the RPSL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/real.php).  

Read that license carefully. It does not say that "combination" is the
triggering act, but rather uses in such a way as "to form a larger
Derivative Work" (RPSL section 4.2).

I have no problem the MPL 2 trying to be consistent with the demands of the
GPL (and many other reciprocal licenses) when one forms a larger *derivative
work*. Perhaps MPL 2 should say explicity that it will allow licensees to
create derivative GPL works from works that start out under MPL 2. But to
imply that mere *combinations of software* create reciprocal obligations is
promoting FOSS fiction. 

You will note that even the RPSL license authors knew they were tackling a
difficult problem. The last sentence of section 4.2 reveals their
discomfort:

   "You are responsible for determining whether your use of software with
    Covered Code is allowed under Your license to such software."
    
They even added a special footnote to the license to disclaim interpretive
value:

   Note: because this license contains certain reciprocal licensing terms 
   that purport to extend to independently developed code, You may be 
   prohibited under the terms of this otherwise compatible license from 
   using code licensed under its terms with Covered Code because Covered 
   Code may only be licensed under the RealNetworks Public Source License.
   Any attempt to apply non RPSL license terms, including without limitation
   the GPL, to Covered Code is expressly forbidden. You are responsible for
   ensuring that Your use of Compatible Source Licensed code does not
violate
   either the RPSL or the Compatible Source License.

I do not believe the RPSL ever found much favor in the wider community. Upon
rereading section 4.2 many years later, I can understand why.

/Larry




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wilson, Andrew [mailto:andrew.wilson at intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:48 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosen; 'OSI License Review'
> Subject: RE: MPL 2 section 11
> 
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> 
> > My point is that the supposed additional permission in Section 11
> allowing
> > us to "combine" MPL code with GPL code is entirely unnecessary. More
> > ominously, it leaves the incorrect impression that *only* such
> combinations
> > are allowed, but in fact *all* open source software can be so
> combined. No
> > OSI-approved license could forbid such combinations.
> 
> Larry, facts are not with you.  There is already an OSI-approved
> license
> which permits only combinations of covered code with code under a
> specific set of licenses.
> That would be the RPSL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/real.php).
> See the definition of Compatible Source License in 1.2 and the license
> grant for Derivative Works in section 4.2.
> Unless you are suggesting OSI should break with precedent?
> 
> > Section 11 of the new MPL ought to be
> > particularly clear about what it allows and what it forbids.
> 
> Agreed.  This is why I initiated this thread, and why it is helpful to
> stay
> on topic.
> 
> Andy Wilson
> Intel open source technology center
>