www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luis Villa <lvi...@mozilla.com>
Subject Re: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible
Date Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:07:24 GMT
On 3/15/10 1:11 PM, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> Luis Villa<lvilla@mozilla.com>  wrote on 03/15/2010 02:05:23 PM:
>> Re: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible
>>
>> On 3/15/10 10:55 AM, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
>>> Right.  Asking Apache to pass on restrictions for the MPL code is
> virtually
>>> the same as passing on the MPL, so that doesn't really help Apache.  Is
>>> there any set of restrictions on the Apache Project itself that would
>>> mitigate the MPL Project's concerns?
>>>
>>> For example, a version of a value add clause that is often found in
>>> Software OEM agreements --  shipping the source under a different
> license
>>> is OK only if (a) the MPL code is being integrated into a larger work,
> (b)
>>> the function of the larger work is not the same or substantially the
> same
>>> as the MPL code, and (c) the Interfaces to the MPL code aren't
> externalized
>>> to the user of the larger work in ordinary use.
>>
>> Jeff, do you have some example language for something like that? It'd be
>> interesting to look at.
>>
> I don't have anything sitting here, but as a strawman, one could add a
> second paragraph to the current Section 3.6 Distribution of Executable
> Versions (which would probably have to be renamed if this were included,
> btw):
>
> In addition, You may distribute Covered Code in Source Code form under a
> license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this
> License, provided that (a) You include a notice stating that the Source
> Code of the Covered Code is also available under the terms of this License,
> including a description of how and where You have fulfilled the obligations
> of Section 3.2, (b) the Source Code is included as part of a Larger Work,
> (c) the function of the Larger Work is not the same or substantially the
> same as the function of the Covered Code, and (d) the programming
> interfaces to the Covered Code are not externalized to the user of the
> Larger Work in its ordinary use.

Interesting. The EUPL has a similar clause, but it is fairly trivial to 
circumvent since it doesn't have language like this (c) and (d). Adding 
language like that might make it more palatable to us, especially if 
outbound to a less restrictive license like Apache. I'll circulate the 
idea and see what happens- thanks for suggesting it.

> I'm sure that other changes would need to be made in other sections.

Yeah, though they would be smaller.

Thanks for thinking out loud with me, Jeffrey-
Luis

-- 
Luis Villa, Mozilla Legal
work email: lvilla@mozilla.com (preferred)
work phone: 650-903-0800 x327
personal: http://tieguy.org/about/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message