www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
Date Sat, 01 Aug 2015 11:50:23 GMT
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> This is what our Apache policy says about the MPL and other reciprocal
> licenses: "Software under the following licenses may be included in binary
> form within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled."
> The nonsense here is not that we gratefully accept the MPL but that you
> limit us to binary form, as if that makes a difference for MPL "publish the
> source" and other license conditions.
It makes total sense. Binary form prevents derivative works of the
MPL-licensed code. Thus, the MPL's demand for publication of changes/source
will not come into effect. Thus, the Foundation's goal of "no further
demands" remains true.

If we bundled MPL-licensed *source* alongside/within our releases, then a
downstream user would need to understand changes *to that part* needs to be
published. But we don't want *any* demand for publication. For anything we


View raw message