MPL Beta 2 released- please continue informal review

[John Cowan]

Luis Villa scripsit:

> Assuming You are the party who combines the MPL work with the GPL
> work, You can't directly make a GPL-only copy; you must "make sure the
> requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software"-
> i.e., You must effectively dual-license.

Ah yes, I meant to complain about that wording.  It suggests that You
must make sure that the requirements of this License are fulfilled *by
everyone*, including Your downstream licensees.  I suggest "You must
fulfill the requirements of this License" as a better wording.

> Someone who gets it from You can then use it under GPL-only terms if
> they'd like, though.

Under the GPLv3, at least, since restrictive additional terms can be
stripped.

> > Can I instead dual-license the Larger Work under MPL+GPL,
> > assuming there are no other GPL-only components?
> 
> There must be a GPL-only component, since you must "combin[e] the
> Covered Software with a work governed by a Secondary License."

Why couldn't the other component be a GPL+MPL dual licensed component?
You don't say "exclusively governed".

-- 
John Cowan              cowan at ccil.org          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant
le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux,
de rapport nyait pas.               --Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"