www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "NOIROT, Julie J" <JULIE.J.NOI...@airbus.com>
Subject RE: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible
Date Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:20:52 GMT

Could you please remove my address from this discussion? 
I have subscribed last week, because I had one single question on one software ECCN that I
did not manage to find on the website but now I realize that I am not really concerned by
the forum discussion.

Thanks for your understanding,


Julie Noirot

-----Original Message-----
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com] 
Sent: 15 March 2010 18:06
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Luis Villa
Subject: Re: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible

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
>> 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

> 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.  Binaries 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 some
> 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

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 available
> under the public license (in this case MPL).  It would be theoretically
> possible to include in the next version of the MPL permission to distribute
> either source or binary under different terms as long as the source code is
> also available under the MPL itself.  The 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

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.


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

This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the
Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used
by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail.
Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as
it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message
or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately.
All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software
but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message
and any attachments are virus free.

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

View raw message