Sam Ruby wrote:

> My understanding is that the MPL version 4 and the GPL version 3 are more restrictive than the Apache License, Version 2.

Ranking licenses on a scale of "restrictiveness" has never proven useful. Better to ask if the license allows the recipient to do what he needs to do with the software.

 

As I read those licenses, you can include MPL or GPL code /in combination/ with Apache software without restriction or infection. Of course, if you create a derivative work /of the MPL or GPL code/ you must distribute /that derivative work/ under the MPL or GPL. Other than the distribution condition on derivative works, what do you find more restrictive in those licenses? And why would you even call that "restrictive" since it doesn't seem to restrict ASF from doing what it is likely to do with that MPL software, namely combine it without changing it at all?

 

Nor does it impose any restrictions on our customers /except/ if they choose to distribute a derivative work of our Apache software. In that event, they must be careful to avoid changing the MPL/GPL components, unless they are willing to disclose those changes. But that's not a unique problem; distributors must /always/ exercise care and diligence with the software they distribute. That's commercially /necessary/. They must read our NOTICE file.

 

> My understanding is that the Apache License, Version 2 is widely considered to be "compatible" with both licenses, in the sense that Apache code may be incorporated into products that are released under the Mozilla and GPL licenses.

And my understanding is that the reverse is also true, as long as you don't try to distribute a derivative work of Mozilla or GPL software under the Apache License. In all other respects, MPL and GPL code is FOSS just like Apache software, with absolutely no restrictions that would violate the OSD. No other restrictions are allowed or could matter to Apache given what we will do with that code.

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu

 

From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 6:48 AM
To: Legal Discuss
Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses

 

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:


On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> You keep asserting this but I do not think you are correct. The
> general rule in the US, though it is a state law issue, is that you
> need explicit permission to pass on a proper subset of rights received
> as to the original material. CC BY clearly denies this permission. I
> think the Apache License 2.0 is best read as denying this right, and
> that view is consistent with what I've heard some ASF people say on
> this list (for example, in one of the AOO vs. LibreOffice threads that
> came up a year or so ago).

+1

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.  Perhaps recasting this question into another context will help me understand.

My understanding is that the MPL version 4 and the GPL version 3 are more restrictive than the Apache License, Version 2.

My understanding is that the Apache License, Version 2 is widely considered to be "compatible" with both licenses, in the sense that Apache code may be incorporated into products that are released under the Mozilla and GPL licenses.

Is my understanding wrong?

- Sam Ruby