MPL 2 section 11

[Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel]

Sounds good to me!
May I politely suggest to OSI to adopt the following "interoperability principle" #11 regarding copyleft?

"Combined works based on components covered by different OSI-approved copyleft licences can be distributed "as a whole" under any of these licences. This does not change the primary licence of each covered component (including their derivatives)"

As license proliferation is a definitive fact and as solutions combines a growing number of components, this could remove a lot of "legal FUD" from communities!
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
Legal expert, www.osor.eu

Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> I have no quarrel with the EUPL that refers to "Derivative Works or copies
> thereof based upon both the Original Work and another work licensed under
> a
> Compatible License...."
> 
> The MPL 2, on the other hand, uses different words. It says, "if You
> create
> a Larger Work by combining Compatible Software with a work governed by a
> Secondary License...." My argument is with the word "combining", which
> leaves the erroneous impression that merely combining two works affects
> their licenses. That nonsense has been spewed by the FSF for too long and
> ought not be echoed in new licenses.
> 
> Precision in words matters!
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel [mailto:patrice-
> > emmanuel.schmitz at be.unisys.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:17 AM
> > To: Lawrence Rosen; 'OSI License Review'
> > Subject: RE: MPL 2 section 11
> >
> > Then Larry, what to think from the OSI-approved EUPL provision that
> > states:
> >
> > "If the Licensee Distributes and/or Communicates Derivative Works or
> > copies thereof based upon both the Original Work and another work
> > licensed under a Compatible Licence, this Distribution and/or
> > Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence.
> > For the sake of this clause, "Compatible Licence" refers to the
> > licences listed in the appendix attached to this Licence."
> >
> > This targets combined works isn't? And the compatible license list
> > mentions only 5 other copyleft licenses (and not all OSI-approved,
> > because many EUPL licensors are administrations refusing the risk to
> > pay for a proprietary application including components that they have
> > licensed for free). This provision could be interpreted by recipients
> > (just like the criticised MPL 2 section 11) that license conflict exist
> > when distributing an application  combining software covered by another
> > copyleft license...
> >
> > So, if I understand your opinion correctly, if a combination is done
> > between - for example - software covered by the EUPL and by the GPLv3
> > (not on the compatible license list), no litigation will follow is the
> > whole combined application is distributed under the EUPL?
> >
> > (I apologize to mix "personal" questions in the MPL debate, hoping this
> > is interesting for all... All opinions here were high quality so far!)
> >
> > >Lawrence Rosen wrote (answering to Andy Wilson):
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
>