David Jenks asked:

> To summarize your post, you are saying that the action of publishing firefox modifications only in executable form violates the MPL, but that the license prohibits such action is not a “restriction”?  Is there some other commonly used term that can be used to describe the situation?  Is using the word “prohibit” also inaccurate here?

 

The right word: In exactly the same way, the following provisions (from ALv2) are not "restrictions" (on larger works) although they are "license conditions". Every FOSS license nowadays has express conditions, and they are worded variously with all the skill and prolixity of talented lawyers.

 

4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:

 

·       You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and

·       You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and

·       You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and

·       If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.

 

You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.

 

Sam Ruby wrote this on Saturday, July 25:

> The relevant criteria: "The license must not place restrictions on the distribution of larger works...". 

 

/Larry

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Jencks [mailto:david.a.jencks@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 8:27 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?

 

Larry,

 

To summarize your post, you are saying that the action of publishing firefox modifications only in executable form violates the MPL, but that the license prohibits such action is not a “restriction”?  Is there some other commonly used term that can be used to describe the situation?  Is using he word “prohibit” also inaccurate here?

 

I’’ve always regarded a rule that says if I do A I must do B as well as a restriction on my ability to do only A so I’m hoping someone can explain what restriction actually means.

 

thanks

david jencks

 

> On Jul 26, 2015, at 10:49 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

>

> Luis and Gerv worked most actively on that MPL license. Perhaps they'll take time to respond to Sam's questions. But this being a quiet, comfortable evening here in Northern California, and there is nothing good on TV, I'll take the time to try to answer them myself. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

>

>> Does the MPL permit -- or does the MPL limit and restrict -- the

>> ability of me to make a copy of the source files for Firefox, change

>> a few files, add a few files, and then distribute the resulting larger work only in executable form?

>

> No, the MPL does not permit that distribution only in executable form. As a license condition you must also publish the source code of your Firefox file changes.

>

> I don't believe the MPL license requires you to publish the new files you added, but I'll bet the Firefox folks would appreciate it if you voluntarily shared those enhancements with the original project. I also trust Apache contributors, by the way, to publish their own added files for Mozilla's benefit even if the MPL doesn't require it.

>

> But remember, all and any modifications are permitted. There is no limit or restriction on your ability to use the source code to make those changes. There is also no limit or restriction on your larger work. But be sure to continue to comply with the MPL license for that Firefox component.

>

>> I'm merely stating that that is a restriction, and that that

>> restriction is not present in the Apache License, Version 2.

>

> It is not a restriction on anything at all.

>

> The MPL license demands that you comply with the Firefox terms and conditions, just as the Apache License demands that you comply with the Apache terms and conditions. But they are both FOSS licenses!

>

> Perhaps it will be helpful for me to mention that the definition of "restriction" came up during negotiation over GPLv3 when they were struggling with the correct language to make clear that no downstream licensee could impose any additional restrictions over that GPL code. Maybe Richard Fontana will take some "free" time to explain the meaning of "restriction" so you won't confuse it with "reciprocity" (i.e., "copyleft") provisions.

>

> Even if one of our downstream customers/distributors doesn't want to

> disclose his modifications to Firefox -- he's not restricted from

> making those modifications but he is required to publish that

> derivative work source. Firefox was free after all, so I don't feel

> sorry for that downstream free-loader. And he's free to replace

> Firefox with Opera or to build a proprietary browser if he's selfish

> about his Firefox crown jewels.  :-)

>

> /Larry

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]

> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:36 PM

> To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen

> <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>

> Subject: Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?

>

> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

>>

>> Larry Rosen wrote:

>>

>>> yes, it does have a reciprocity requirement for derivative works of

>>

>>> the Covered Code, and (like ALv2 and CC-BY) has an attribution

>>> policy

>>

>>> that affects both derivative and larger works.

>>

>>

>>

>> Sam Ruby responded:

>>

>>> So we now agree that a number of FOSS licenses (including MPL) place

>>> restrictions

>>

>>> on certain larger works.  That's progress!  I'll take it.

>>

>>

>>

>> We DON'T agree. I said "affects" not "restrictions". /Larry

>

>

>

> Ok, lets step back then.

>

>

> Does the MPL permit -- or does the MPL limit and restrict -- the ability of me to make a copy of the source files for Firefox, change a few files, add a few files, and then distribute the resulting larger work only in executable form?

>

> My read is that the limits and restricts my ability to so.  Note: I'm not saying that that restriction is unreasonable.  I'm merely stating that that is a restriction, and that that restriction is not present in the Apache License, Version 2.

>

> Do read the MPL differently?

>

>

>

> The Mozilla Foundation's FAQ indicates that the release of source code to modifications is mandatory:

>

> https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#distribute-binaries-from-modi

> fied-source

>

> Do you disagree with their FAQ?

>

>

>

>> re·stric·tion

>>

>> rəˈstrikSH(ə)n/

>>

>> noun

>>

>> plural noun: restrictions

>>

>> 1.     a limiting condition or measure, especially a legal one.

>>

>> "planning restrictions on commercial development"

>>

>> synonyms:

>>

>> reduction, limitation, diminution, curtailment

>>

>> "the restriction of personal freedom"

>>

>> o   the limitation or control of someone or something, or the state of being limited or restricted.

>>

>> "the restriction of local government power"

>>

>> synonyms:

>>

>> limitation, limit, constraint, control, check, curb;

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> af·fect1

>>

>> əˈfekt/

>>

>> verb

>>

>> 3rd person present: affects

>>

>> 1.     have an effect on; make a difference to.

>>

>> "the dampness began to affect my health"

>>

>> synonyms:

>>

>> have an effect on, influence, act on, work on, have an impact on,

>> impact;More

>>

>> o   touch the feelings of (someone); move emotionally.

>>

>> "the atrocities he witnessed have affected him most deeply"

>>

>> synonyms:

>>

>> move, touch, make an impression on, hit (hard), tug at someone's

>> heartstrings;

>>

>>

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org

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

>

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org

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

>