Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hyandell@gmail.com designates
 209.85.221.203 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=FP1B1izdcolPeqi4jIn6ts4zIejpiMswUsAZfKh1pt5CxBuLX4fOp8RBNebtb8pKpp
         ds2KwLmA2PMJnDx6sGsV86m2eZraf2WZHsuemHihq/pA9RtpeLWDwxO/R++Wz3CuP+EC
         RU3OqzG6pSEmCOEWvF1Edz8pY5JZdXTDOdoHE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <OF4257D102.3FCA4491-ON852576E7.005230B0-852576E7.00562976@us.ibm.com>
References: <4B9ACA56.3040706@mozilla.com>
	 <067201cac250$923e7760$b6bb6620$@com>
	 <OF4257D102.3FCA4491-ON852576E7.005230B0-852576E7.00562976@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:06:13 -0700
Message-ID: <2d12b2f01003151006g1b3fbc17ib9c52d196e453e83@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible
From: Henri Yandell <hyandell@gmail.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Luis Villa <lvilla@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 03/12/2010 08:57:43 PM:
>
>> RE: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible
>>
>> Hi Luis,
>>
> ...
>> I'm also sort of surprised that you believe there's an incompatibility
>> between the Apache License 2.0 and the MPL. Apache is thrilled to have
> its
>> software incorporated into any larger works under any license anyone
> wants.
>> If we're compatible with proprietary licenses, why aren't we already
>> compatible with the MPL?
>>
> ...
>> I believe that the Apache License 2.0 is already one-way compatible with
> MPL
>> 1.1, and I can't imagine what you would put in your new license that
> would
>> change that situation for the worse. I'll be watching, though, just in
> case.
>> ;)
>
> Larry, Luis,
>
> Do you think that there is an opportunity to get the MPL 2-way compatible
> with the Apache license?

I'd love to see that. I was trying to think of how weak-copyleft and
permissive could find a middle ground, but couldn't think of a
permissively,with,some,copyleft license that could satisfy both
philosophies.

> As I understand it, Apache projects occasionally want to include MPL
> licensed software, and could include binaries under Category B of Apache'=
s
> Third Party Licensing Policy. =A0Binaries are normally the only form of
> distribution because source code for MPL projects can only be distributed
> under the MPL, whereas binaries can be distributed under different terms.
> As the policy points out, limiting the distribution to binaries causes so=
me
> practical issues, especially for scripting languages, etc.

The direct Apache reason on the binary-only policy is that it lowers
the risk of modifications being incorrectly managed. We have items in
category B that don't have the binaries under different license
option.

We could solve this with a read-only infrastructure that manages the
changes; but it also requires our users to setup the same type of
infrastructure. Maybe if we someday end up with a standard approach to
classifying licensing in projects that could be possible.

> Under the weak copyleft principle, the source code must always be availab=
le
> under the public license (in this case MPL). =A0It would be theoretically
> possible to include in the next version of the MPL permission to distribu=
te
> either source or binary under different terms as long as the source code =
is
> also available under the MPL itself. =A0The relevant question is whether =
that
> would create too much of a problem for MPL projects.

I think the biggest issue here is that the user of the product under
the different license is now detached from MPL. Effectively this would
be a 1-tier copyleft system and you could get around MPL by setting up
a non-profit foundation who redistribute MPL under permissive
licensing.

It could be a clause that allows this as long as certain rights are
removed (redistribution/modification), but that wouldn't have value
for the community, just the proprietary end user.

Hen

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